Doe

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JANE DOE, Case No. 19-cv-03310-JSC

10 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

11 v. TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

12 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 33 Defendants. 13

14 15 Jane Doe brings tort claims against Uber and its wholly owned subsidiaries Rasier, LLC 16 and Rasier CA, LLC (collectively “Uber”) after she was assaulted by a former Uber driver 17 posing as a current Uber driver. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with leave to 18 amend. (Dkt. No. 29.) Uber now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for 19 failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 20 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 33.) After careful consideration of the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes 21 that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS IN PART and 22 DENIES IN PART Uber’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s tort claims based on ostensible agency 23 are…