Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Certified for Publication (2024)
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a forum non conveniens motion to stay (and potentially dismiss) cases, even when the defendant's principal place of business is in California, if suitable alternative forums exist, the private and public interest factors (as outlined in Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc.) strongly favor the alternative forum, and the court is not required to apply a 'seriously inconvenient forum' standard for nonresident plaintiffs or give preclusive effect to a prior coordination order regarding individualized issues.
Facts:
- On June 8, 2020, Jane Doe WHBE 3, a California resident, filed suit against Uber in San Francisco Superior Court for claims arising from her alleged sexual assault by an Uber driver in Hawaii on January 13, 2020.
- On June 16, 2021, Jane Doe LSA 35, a Texas resident, filed a similar complaint in San Francisco Superior Court alleging sexual assault by an Uber driver in November 2017.
- On June 28, 2021, Jane Doe LSA 1 submitted a petition for coordination, seeking to group 86 similar cases by rape and sexual assault victims against Uber across at least five California counties.
- Uber Technologies, Inc. (and Raiser, LLC) is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in California.
- The alleged assailants in Jane Doe WHBE 3's and Jane Doe LSA 35's cases were residents of other states (Hawaii and Texas, respectively).
- The coordinated proceeding eventually grew to include some 1,201 plaintiffs, with roughly two-thirds of cases (over 900) involving incidents that occurred outside California, where plaintiffs either were not California residents or moved to California only after the incident, and alleged assailants also resided outside California.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 8, 2020, Jane Doe WHBE 3 filed suit against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC in San Francisco Superior Court.
- On June 16, 2021, Jane Doe LSA 35 filed a similar complaint in San Francisco Superior Court.
- On June 28, 2021, Jane Doe LSA 1 submitted a petition to the Chair of the Judicial Council for coordination, designation as complex, and application for a stay of 86 similar cases against Uber.
- On December 9, 2021, the coordination motion judge, Judge Cheng, issued an order granting the petition for coordination and request for a stay, recommending San Francisco Superior Court as the site for coordinated proceedings.
- On February 2, 2022, the presiding judge assigned the Honorable Ethan Schulman as coordination trial judge.
- On October 10, 2022, Uber filed motions to stay or dismiss the cases of Jane Doe LSA 35 and Jane Doe WHBE 3 on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
- On November 14 and 15, 2022, plaintiffs filed oppositions to Uber’s motions.
- On January 23, 2023, Judge Schulman issued an order granting Uber’s motions for a stay as to both Jane Doe LSA 35 and Jane Doe WHBE 3.
- On February 10, 2023, the parties filed a joint case management statement, agreeing on which cases were affected by the January order but disputing specific implementation terms.
- On February 21, 2023, a case management conference was held where Judge Schulman and the parties agreed upon modifications to Uber's proposed order regarding refiling periods and statute of limitations tolling.
- On February 28, 2023, Judge Schulman issued the parties’ agreed-upon order applying the forum non conveniens ruling to a vast number of “non-California cases,” staying them and providing for tolling of the statute of limitations.
- Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal from both Judge Schulman’s January 23 forum non conveniens ruling (A167458) and his February 28 order implementing that ruling (A167709), which were consolidated.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting a forum non conveniens motion to stay (and potentially dismiss) cases brought by non-California residents or cases arising from incidents outside California, despite the defendant's principal place of business being in California, and without applying a 'seriously inconvenient forum' standard or giving preclusive effect to an earlier coordination order, where suitable alternative forums were available?
Opinions:
Majority - Richman, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Uber's motions for forum non conveniens and staying (and potentially dismissing) "non-California cases" in the coordinated proceeding. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order, finding no error in its application of the forum non conveniens doctrine. First, the court held that suitable alternative forums existed for the cases. Uber satisfied its burden by offering to stipulate to jurisdiction in Hawaii and Texas and waive any applicable statute of limitations, which courts routinely accept. The plaintiffs themselves conceded Hawaii was a suitable forum and did not dispute Texas, waiving the argument on appeal that formal stipulations were required or that suitability for all 47 other states needed to be determined individually after they had agreed to a case-management plan for aggregate resolution. Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Uber was required to demonstrate California was a "seriously inconvenient" forum. Relying on National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (2013) and Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017), the court found prior cases that imposed this higher burden to be unpersuasive or inapposite, particularly for nonresident plaintiffs or when a stay rather than dismissal is granted. The court clarified that the relevant inquiry is a balancing of all pertinent factors. Third, regarding the presumption that California is a convenient forum (due to Uber's principal place of business here and Jane Doe WHBE 3's California residency), the court acknowledged that such deference or presumption applies. However, it reiterated that this presumption is not conclusive and can be overcome by evidence that an alternative jurisdiction is more convenient. The trial court's finding that the public interest factors overwhelmingly weighed in favor of transfer effectively overcame any weak presumption of convenience, as the public interest factors "weigh heavily in favor of transfer" and "overwhelmingly apply here." Fourth, the court found the plaintiffs' argument that the coordination order should be given "proper deference" or collateral estoppel effect was waived because it was not raised below. Even if preserved, collateral estoppel could not apply because the coordination order was an earlier ruling in the same action, not a former proceeding, and therefore lacked preclusive effect. Any error in this regard was deemed harmless because the trial court expressly stated it did not need to resolve how private interest factors weighed, given the overwhelming weight of public interest factors. Finally, the court declined to consider the plaintiffs' argument based on Uber's terms of use, as it was raised for the first time on appeal and involved disputed facts not presented in the record.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in California, particularly for mass tort or coordinated proceedings involving a defendant with a California presence but predominantly out-of-state plaintiffs and incidents. It reinforces the principle that courts have broad discretion in such matters and that public interest factors, such as court congestion and the burden of applying diverse state laws, can heavily outweigh a plaintiff's choice of forum or a defendant's California residency. The ruling also serves as a strong reminder to litigants to preserve all legal arguments at the trial court level and highlights the limited preclusive effect of coordination orders within the same action.
