Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

184 F. Supp. 3d 774 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D operates as a 'transportation network company.' Customers download D's smartphone application and then use the 'App' to make a transportation request. D then matches them with a D driver who picks them up and drives them to a destination. The customer pays for the ride through the App with a credit card. D then pays the driver a share of the fare collected and retains the remainder. D solicits and retains non-professional drivers to provide the car rides. A driver applies online and uploads photos of a driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. D performs a background check through a third party company dating back seven years. Once passed that driver is available to the public to provide transportation services through the App. Doe 1 and her friends used the Uber App to arrange a car ride. Uber driver Abderrahim Dakiri confirmed that he was on his way, and picked up Doe 1 and her friends. Dakiri dropped off Doe 1's friends first. Doe 1 gave Dakiri the address of her destination. Dakiri then began to sexually assault Doe 1. Dakiri drove more than 15 minutes off route 'in order to increase his opportunity to sexually assault her.' Dakiri parked the car in a remote area and continued to sexually assault Doe 1 until she was able to unlock the car door and run away. Doe 2 and a group of friends got a ride from Uber driver Patrick Aiello. Aiello drove the group to a bar. Aiello commented that he would like to give the group a ride home, and someone in the group asked Aiello if he would agree to pick them up later. They later saw Aiello enter that same bar and observed him sitting at the bar during the night. Aiello drove Doe 2 and a friend from the group back to her friend's apartment. Doe 2 mentioned that she could not find her phone and wanted to look for it at the apartment. Doe 2 'intended to collect her phone from her friend's apartment and walk the two blocks home to her apartment.' After looking for her phone for five to ten minutes, Doe 2 left for her own apartment. 'When Ms. Doe 2 went outside, Aiello said he would drive her home.' Doe 2 got into the car and gave Aiello her home address. Doe 2 realized that Aiello was driving the wrong way. Aiello told Doe 2 that she owed him a blow job. Aiello locked the doors. Aiello drove the car to a remote parking lot and viciously rape her and threaten her with harm multiple times. Doe 2 'was able to get onto the highway, crossed to the median. A car hit Doe 2's arm while she was waving for help. Doe 2 became suicidal and was transferred to a psychiatric unit for three days. Doe 1 learned that Dakiri had resided in the United States for less than three years. Aiello had a previous domestic violence arrest, resulting in an assault conviction in April 2003. D's background check only covered the prior seven years. Ps sued D for (1) negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (2) fraud; (3) battery; (4) assault; (5) false imprisonment; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Claims 3 through 6 against are under a theory of respondeat superior. D moved to dismiss the complaint. D argues that Ps have not alleged sufficient facts to establish that there is an employment relationship between D and the drivers. D also claims sexual assault falls outside the scope of an employee's duties. D disputes Ps' assertion that D is a 'common carrier.'