Latest news with #Breyer
USA Today
10-07-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Uber sexual assault case: Judge questions app's role in passenger risk
The federal judge overseeing more than 2,300 lawsuits seeking to hold Uber UBER.N liable to passengers who were sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers dismissed some key claims in the nationwide litigation. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco rejected some fraud and product liability claims on Tuesday. His decision addressing 20 "bellwether" Uber cases could be a template for similar cases against the San Francisco-based ride-sharing company. A trial is scheduled for December 8. Lawyers for passengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Uber and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests. Passengers said "Designated Driver" ads promoting Uber as a safe alternative to drunk driving should have disclosed that intoxicated people, especially women and especially late at night, faced an elevated risk of sexual assault by drivers. The passengers also said app notifications containing Uber drivers' names, photos and "star ratings" should have disclosed drivers' prior misconduct and criminal histories. In case you missed it: Uber is trying to help older Americans' transportation troubles. Will it work? In his 37-page decision, Breyer dismissed fraud claims based on ads saying "Don't drink and drive, call an Uber" and "Stay safe tonight. Use Uber." The judge said reasonable consumers would view those ads merely as encouragement to use Uber, rather than drive drunk. But he also said Uber's handling of app notifications "could form a deceptive scheme to obfuscate the risk of serious harm" when women accepted rides from drivers with histories of misconduct. Uber said it did not intend to fraudulently withhold information, and no passengers claimed they relied on the app notifications. Breyer also dismissed claims that Uber's app was defective because it failed to prevent high-risk pairings of drivers and passengers. The judge previously dismissed some other claims in the bellwether cases. He refused to dismiss product liability claims based on the app's lacking a feature to match passengers with drivers of the same gender. In its U.S. safety report for 2021 and 2022, Uber said it received 2,717 reported incidents of the most serious categories of sexual assault and misconduct. Uber also said only 0.1% of the more than 1.8 billion U.S. trips in those years had reported safety incidents, mainly about "minor" issues such as complaints about driving or verbal arguments. The case is In re Uber Technologies Inc Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-03084. Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by David Gregorio
Economic Times
09-07-2025
- Economic Times
US judge dismisses some claims in Uber sexual assault lawsuits
The federal judge overseeing more than 2,300 lawsuits seeking to hold Uber liable to passengers who were sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers dismissed some key claims in the nationwide District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco rejected some fraud and product liability claims on decision addressing 20 "bellwether" Uber cases could be a template for similar cases against the San Francisco-based ride-sharing company. A trial is scheduled for December for passengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Uber and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar said "Designated Driver" ads promoting Uber as a safe alternative to drunk driving should have disclosed that intoxicated people, especially women and especially late at night, faced an elevated risk of sexual assault by passengers also said app notifications containing Uber drivers' names, photos and "star ratings" should have disclosed drivers' prior misconduct and criminal his 37-page decision, Breyer dismissed fraud claims based on ads saying "Don't drink and drive, call an Uber" and "Stay safe tonight. Use Uber."The judge said reasonable consumers would view those ads merely as encouragement to use Uber, rather than drive he also said Uber's handling of app notifications "could form a deceptive scheme to obfuscate the risk of serious harm" when women accepted rides from drivers with histories of said it did not intend to fraudulently withhold information, and no passengers claimed they relied on the app also dismissed claims that Uber's app was defective because it failed to prevent high-risk pairings of drivers and refused to dismiss product liability claims based on the app's lacking a feature to match passengers with drivers of the same judge previously dismissed some other claims in the bellwether its US safety report for 2021 and 2022, Uber said it received 2,717 reported incidents of the most serious categories of sexual assault and also said only 0.1% of the more than 1.8 billion U.S. trips in those years had reported safety incidents, mainly about "minor" issues such as complaints about driving or verbal case is In re Uber Technologies Inc Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-03084.
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
US judge dismisses some claims in Uber sexual assault lawsuits
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The federal judge overseeing more than 2,300 lawsuits seeking to hold Uber liable to passengers who were sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers dismissed some key claims in the nationwide District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco rejected some fraud and product liability claims on decision addressing 20 "bellwether" Uber cases could be a template for similar cases against the San Francisco-based ride-sharing company. A trial is scheduled for December for passengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Uber and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar said "Designated Driver" ads promoting Uber as a safe alternative to drunk driving should have disclosed that intoxicated people, especially women and especially late at night, faced an elevated risk of sexual assault by passengers also said app notifications containing Uber drivers' names, photos and "star ratings" should have disclosed drivers' prior misconduct and criminal his 37-page decision, Breyer dismissed fraud claims based on ads saying "Don't drink and drive, call an Uber" and "Stay safe tonight. Use Uber."The judge said reasonable consumers would view those ads merely as encouragement to use Uber, rather than drive he also said Uber's handling of app notifications "could form a deceptive scheme to obfuscate the risk of serious harm" when women accepted rides from drivers with histories of said it did not intend to fraudulently withhold information, and no passengers claimed they relied on the app also dismissed claims that Uber's app was defective because it failed to prevent high-risk pairings of drivers and refused to dismiss product liability claims based on the app's lacking a feature to match passengers with drivers of the same judge previously dismissed some other claims in the bellwether its US safety report for 2021 and 2022, Uber said it received 2,717 reported incidents of the most serious categories of sexual assault and also said only 0.1% of the more than 1.8 billion U.S. trips in those years had reported safety incidents, mainly about "minor" issues such as complaints about driving or verbal case is In re Uber Technologies Inc Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-03084.
Los Angeles Times
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California hopes law from bloody era of U.S. history can rein in Trump's use of troops
California's fight to rein in President Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles hinges on a 19th century law with a a blood-soaked origin and a name that seems pulled from a Spaghetti Western. In a pivotal ruling this week, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered the federal government to hand over evidence to state authorities seeking to prove that the actions of troops in Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws. 'How President Trump has used and is using the federalized National Guard and the Marines since deploying them at the beginning of June is plainly relevant to the Posse Comitatus Act,' Breyer wrote Wednesday in his order authorizing 'limited expedited discovery.' The Trump administration objected to the move and has already once gotten a sweeping Breyer ruling that would've limited White House authority over the troops overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This time, the Northern District of California judge made clear he would 'only allow discovery as to the Posse Comitatus Act' — signaling what could be the state's last stand battle to prevent Marines and National Guard forces from participating in immigration enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act dates back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the American government faced violent resistance to its efforts to rebuild Southern state governments and enforce federal law following the abolition of slavery. The text of the law itself is slight, its relevant section barely more than 60 words. Yet when it was enacted, it served as the legal epitaph to Reconstruction — and a preface to Jim Crow. 'It has these very ignoble beginnings,' said Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University and one of the country's foremost experts on the statute. Before the Civil War, the U.S. military was kept small, in part to avoid the kinds of abuses American colonists suffered under the British. Authorities back then could marshal a crew of civilians, called a posse comitatus, to assist them, as sometimes happened in California during the Gold Rush. States also had militias that could be called up by the president to pad out the army in wartime. But law enforcement by the U.S. military was rare and deeply unpopular. Historians have said the use of soldiers to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — which saw escaped slaves hunted down and returned to the South — helped spark the Civil War. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has used constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to justify using troops to round up immigrants. Experts said leaders from the antebellum South demanded similar enforcement of the law. 'The South was all for posse comitatus when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act,' said Josh Dubbert, a historian at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library in Ohio. But by the time Congress sent federal troops to begin Reconstruction in earnest in 1867, the landscape was very different. After white rioters razed Black neighborhoods in Memphis and mobs of ex-Confederate soldiers massacred Black demonstrators in New Orleans in the spring of 1866, 'most of the South [was] turned into military districts,' said Jacob Calhoun, a professor of American history at Wabash College and an expert on Reconstruction. 'Most scholars, let alone the American public, do not understand the scale of racial violence during Reconstruction,' Calhoun said. 'They only send these troops in after unimaginable levels of violence.' At the polls, Black voters were met by white gangs seeking to prevent them from casting ballots. 'For most of American history, the idea of an American army intervening in elections is a nightmare,' Calhoun said. '[Posse Comitatus] is reemphasizing this longstanding belief but for more nefarious purposes.' The Posse Comitatus language was tucked into an appropriations bill by Southern Democrats after their party won control of Congress in the election of 1876 — 'possibly the most violent election in American history,' Calhoun said. Historians say white lawmakers in the post-war South sought to enshrine their ability to keep Black men from voting by barring federal forces from bolstering the local militias that protected them. 'Once they're in control of Congress, they want to cut the appropriations for the army,' Dubbert said. 'They attach this amendment to [their appropriations bill] which is the Posse Comitatus Act.' The bill won support from some Republicans, who resented the use of federalized troops to put down the Railroad Strike of 1877 — the first national labor strike in the U.S. 'It is a moment in which white Northern congressmen surrender the South back to ex-Confederates,' Calhoun said. 'With the Posse Comitatus Act, racial violence becomes the norm.' Yet the statute itself largely vanished from memory, little used for most of the next century. 'The Posse Comitatus Act was forgotten for about 75 years, from after Reconstruction to basically the 1950s, when a defense lawyer made a challenge to a piece of evidence that the Army had obtained,' Nevitt said. 'The case law is [all] after World War II.' Those cases have largely turned on troops who arrest, search, seize or detain civilians — 'the normal thing the LAPD does on a daily basis,' Nevitt said. The courts have stood by the bedrock principle that military personnel should not be used to enforce the law against civilians, he said, except in times of rebellion or other extreme scenarios. 'Our nation was forged in large part because the British military was violating the civil rights of colonists in New England,' Nevitt said. 'I really can't think of a more important question than the military's ability to use force against Americans.' Yet, the law is full of loopholes, scholars said — notably in relation to use of the National Guard. Department of Justice has argued Posse Comitatus does not apply to the military's current actions in Southern California — and even if it did, the soldiers deployed there haven't violated the law. It also claimed the 9th Circuit decision endorsing Trump's authority to call up troops rendered the Posse Comitatus issue moot. Some experts feel California's case is strong. 'You literally have military roaming the streets of Los Angeles with civilian law enforcement,' said Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, 'That's exactly what the [act] is designed to prevent.' But Nevitt was more doubtful. Even if Breyer ultimately rules that Trump's troops are violating the law and grants the injunction California is seeking, the 9th Circuit will almost certainly strike it down, he said. 'It's going to be an uphill battle,' the attorney said. 'And if they find a way to get to the Supreme Court, I see the Supreme Court siding with Trump as well.'
Los Angeles Times
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom vs. Trump: What to know about California's lawsuit against the federal government
Even a casual reader of this newsletter knows the Trump administration has deployed nearly 7,000 federal troops to L.A. over the last two weeks. Most also know California officials sued to stop them. (I reported earlier that the line he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed from Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution was first invoked to deploy troops against civilians to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.) But if your life and your For You Page are anything like mine, you may not have kept up with the details since then. So as your resident legal affairs correspondent, I'm here to tell you what's happening with California's lawsuit against the federal government, and what you should watch for next. California's June 9 suit makes two big legal claims: On June 12, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer — the bowtie-wearing brother of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer — agreed with the first set of claims, saying the government hadn't shown evidence of a 'rebellion' in Los Angeles and that civilian efforts to frustrate ICE raids were not disruptive enough to trigger 10 U.S.C. § 12406. He issued an order that would have given control of most troops back to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump appealed the order. The 9th Circuit hit pause to review it, leaving the troops in Trump's hands. A week later, the appellate panel tossed out Breyer's order entirely. In the court's Juneteenth ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote that the Constitution and the U.S. Code gave the president broad authority to interpret the facts as he saw them. But neither court has yet opined on California's second major claim: that by assisting immigration raids, troops under Trump's command violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws. (That law has an 'ignominious' history. I'll explain more later this week.) On Tuesday, Breyer gave state attorneys the green light to start collecting evidence about troop activities 'on the streets of communities in Southern California', and to depose key officials, including ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Field Office Director Ernesto Santacruz Jr. and Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell. Meanwhile, DOJ lawyers argued troops aren't enforcing civilian law; and even if they were, that would be allowed under the statute; and even if it wasn't, the Northern District of California has limited authority to say so. (Anyone who listened to Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate argue before the 9th Circuit last week will instantly recognize this as his signature style.) Trump's June 7 executive order called up troops for 60 days — or at the discretion of the secretary of Defense. Does that mean soldiers could be deployed in Los Angeles indefinitely? That's something California lawyers have sought to clarify through the courts while the PCA claim is heard. In his Tuesday order, Breyer signaled he could weigh in on it. The one thing we can say for sure is, if California wins, the Trump administration will appeal. Today's great photo is from Times photographer Juliana Yamada at the garage of animator-turned-ceramicist Rami Kim, who has been making whimsical character-driven ceramics in Los Angeles for more than a decade. Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
