LS 135 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT
LITIGATION
_________________________________/
This Order Relates To:
Cases in Exhibit A
MDL No. 3084
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONVERT ORDERS OF
DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO ORDERS OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Dkt. 5567
On February 10, 2026, the Court dismissed without prejudice the claims of certain
plaintiffs who failed to comply with PTO 31 (failing to produce a bona fide ride receipt or
a statement explaining search efforts). Dkt. 5216. On February 13, 2026, the Court
dismissed without prejudice the claims of certain plaintiffs who failed to comply with PTO
5 (failing to provide a bona fide receipt or information sheet regarding the trip), Amended
PTO 10 (failing to provide the required Plaintiff Fact Sheet), and PTO 31. Dkts. 4287,
5238, 5242. On February 17, 2026, the Court dismissed without prejudice the claims of
certain plaintiffs who failed to comply with Amended PTO 10. Dkt. 5253. Uber now
moves to convert those dismissals without prejudice to dismissals with prejudice, pursuant
to the procedure outlined in Amended PTO 10.
The majority of plaintiffs listed in Uber’s Exhibit A did not file any opposition.
Those cases are dismissed with prejudice.
Wagstaff law firm opposes as to certain plaintiffs that it continues to attempt to
reach. Dkt. 5734. However, those plaintiffs have been non-compliant with the Court’s
Case 3:24-cv-05971-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
orders for months and in some cases more than a year. Therefore, the Court finds that
dismissal with prejudice is warranted given the prejudice to Uber. See In re
Phenylproanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). The
fact that the Wagstaff law firm has previously attempted to withdraw from representation
as to two of those plaintiffs, where Uber discovered evidence that non-bona fide receipts
were submitted, is not relevant as the Court has already denied the request for withdrawal.
Therefore, the Wagstaff law firm plaintiffs’ cases are also dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-05971-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2