Cases

a. Rules Governing Contract Interpretation "Interpretation of a contract is a matter of law, as is the determination of whether a contract is ambiguous." Beck Park Apartments v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev. , 695 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1982) ; see also Wolf v. Sup. Ct. ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JONATHAN CAMILLE MANDENG, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 24-3488 (JDB) UBER COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Jonathan Camille Mandeng, a former driver for the rideshare company Uber, sued Uber in D.C. Superior Court. After removing the action to this Cou

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL R. RATTAGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. S272113 Ninth Circuit 20-16796 Northern District of California 3:19-CV-01988-EMC August 22, 2024 Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAUREL HILBERT, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-00584 (AHA) v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff Laurel Hilbert brought this action against Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., and two subsi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES MASON BUSSMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 24-1316 (JEB) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pedestrian Charles Bussman was struck and injured in 2021 by an Uber driven by Bruceline Fru. Two years later, Bussman and Uber’s

Filed 6/24/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JANE DOE WHBE 3, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A167458, A167709 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et (San Francisco City & County al., Super. Ct. No. CJC21005188)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JESUS M. CHRISTIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 24-00304 (EGS) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Jesus M. Christian (“Mr. Christan”), in his individual capacity and as the personal representative of the es

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DANIEL O. HARTENSTINE, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 24-1838 (JEB) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Daniel O. Hartenstine suffered serious injuries when he was dragged 20 feet by an Uber while on vacation in Mexico. He now

Filed 8/30/24; Certified for Publication 9/20/24 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MACKENZIE YOUNG JAY B331247 KIM, Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 20STCV25305 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Resp

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1749 MAZEN HASAN AGHA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ERIK ADOLPH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Appellant. S274671 Fourth Appellate District, Division Three G059860 and G060198 Orange County Superior Court 30-2019-01103801 July 17,

Filed 3/24/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JOHNATHON GREGG, B302925 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC719085 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los An

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMIE DRAMMEH; YUSUPHA No. 22-36038 CEESAY, Individually and as surviving parents of Cherno Ceesay; D.C. No. MARAM CEESAY, Personal 2:21-cv-00202- Representative of the estate of Cherno BJR Ceesay, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ORDER v. CERTIFYING

II. Analysis To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim *178to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE, No. 22-16562 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-03310- v. JSC UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ORDER RASIER, LLC; RASIER CA, LLC, CERTIFYING QUESTION TO Defendan

FILED FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BYRON MCKNIGHT; JULIAN MENA; No. 21-16623 TODD SCHREIBER; NAT

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D23-0802 Lower Tribunal No. 19-31984 ________________ Yesit Campo, etc., et al., Appellants,

J-A03009-22 2022 PA Super 172 SHANNON CHILUTTI AND KEITH IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHILUTTI, H/W OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GEGEN, LLC, RAISER-PA, LLC, RAISER, LLC, SARAH’S CAR CARE, INC. AND MOHAMMED BASHIER Appellees No. 1023 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered

Filed 4/30/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT DAMARIS ROSALES, B305546 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC685555) v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) SAMUEL TYLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-3492 (ABJ) ) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., )