Michael Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Good Law
19 F.4th 1188
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 6, 202120-16796California2,084 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Factual Background

This case arises out of Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) launch of its ridesharing platform in Argentina. In 2013, two of Uber’s wholly owned Dutch subsidiaries retained Plaintiff-Appellant, Michael Rattagan, a corporate attorney in Argentina, to provide certain legal services and

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

RATTAGAN V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES

serve as the Dutch entities’ legal representative in Buenos Aires. These Dutch entities would be the shareholders of a new Uber subsidiary in Argentina. In 2015, Uber representatives from the company’s headquarters in San Francisco allegedly assumed responsibility for communicating with Mr. Rattagan about the launch.

In April 2016, Uber launched its platform in Argentina. According to Mr. Rattagan, however, Uber did so before its Argentine subsidiary was fully formed or registered with the proper tax authority. Mr. Rattagan alleges that despite knowing that Mr. Rattagan, as the Dutch entities’ legal representative, could be subject to personal liability for Uber’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.