Doe
Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JANE DOE, Case No. 19-cv-03310-JSC
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION FOR
v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 220 Defendants.
12 Jane Doe brings a negligence claim against Uber and its wholly owned subsidiaries Rasier, LLC and Rasier CA, LLC (collectively “Uber”) arising from an assault by a former Uber driver posing as a current Uber driver. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s tort claims based on ostensible agency and her common carrier negligence claim, but allowed her negligence claim to proceed under a misfeasance theory. (Dkt. No. 41.) Since that time, the California courts have issued a series of rulings regarding the scope of negligence claims under California law. See, e.g., Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal. 5th 204, 209 (2021), reh’g denied (May 12, 2021); Jane Doe No. 1 v. Uber Techs., Inc., 79 Cal. App. 5th 410 (2022), reh’g denied (Aug. 24, 2022). Following the latest of…