Our Litigators of the week are Alexandra Walsh of Anapol Weiss, Sarah London of Girard Sharp and Deborah Chang of Chang Klein, who represent the plaintiff in the first bellwether trial in multidistrict litigation targeting Uber with claims tied to sexual assault allegations against drivers. Their client, Jalynn Dean, claimed an Uber driver raped her in November 2023 during a late-night ride to her hotel in Tempe, Arizona. Last week, after a three-week trial, federal jurors in Phoenix awarded Dean $8.5 million in damages. Although jurors turned back Dean’s negligence and design defect claims against Uber, they found the company liable on apparent agency grounds. Litigation Daily: How did you and your firms come to be involved in this litigation? Deborah Chang: I became involved in this litigation through Sarah London, who was passionately committed to this litigation and the first bellwether trial long before we knew which case would be selected. Her enthusiasm was infectious, and I was honored to be asked to be a part of the trial team. Alexandra Walsh: When the MDL was formed, Judge Breyer appointed me as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.The co-leads of the MDL—Sarah along with Roopal Luhana and Rachel Abrams—asked me to lead the Trial Subcommittee with Sarah, a charge that I eagerly accepted. Sarah London: Marlene Goldenberg and Rachel Abrams approached me before the MDL was formed to consider a potential leadership role. After diving in to investigate the claims, I enthusiastically jumped at the opportunity to serve on this historic, complex and critically important case. Who was part of the bellwether team—both in terms of the discovery and motions practice it took to get this case to trial and then in the actual trial presentation? How did this trial team come together? Walsh: Everyone! I say that because from day one, we made sure that every action taken in the litigation was aimed at effectively trying this first bellwether case, and the cases that come next. Every discovery request, every deposition, every expert engagement and every dispositive motion was crafted with trial in mind. It was remarkable to see years of collaborative work by the full team come together when it came time to present our case. At trial itself, we had an amazing team of lawyers and legal professionals from our own firms as well as Chaffin Luhana, Peiffer Wolf, Simmons Hanly Conroy, Wagstaff Law Firm, Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger and Nigh Goldenberg—all of whom worked tirelessly behind the scenes for this win.Detailing individual contributions would take far too many pages, but I would be remiss not to call out the team from Peiffer Wolf who represented Jaylynn Dean from the very beginning. The compassion and care they brought to advocating Ms. Dean was a testament to the important work we do in representing rape survivors. Tell me a bit about how Judge Breyer has organized the bellwether process here in this MDL. London: Judge Breyer ordered each side to select 10 cases for expanded discovery and pleading challenges. He then separated the cases into waves. The first wave includes six cases: two from Arizona, two from California and two from North Carolina. How was this case in Arizona chosen for trial first? London: Ms. Dean filed her case in the Northern District of California, where Uber is headquartered. Despite Uber’s public commitment to honor any survivor’s chosen forum, it moved to transfer the case to Arizona, citing its Terms of Use. The terms dictate that the forum shall be where the assault occurred. Ms. Dean was raped in Arizona when she was there attending flight attendant school. Judge Breyer granted Uber’s motion, but traveled to Arizona to preside over the case. Ms. Dean’s case was initially a plaintiff selection, but both sides stipulated to try it first. The next bellwether trial is a Defense pick and will proceed in Charlotte, North Carolina, on April 13 in front of Judge Breyer. What were some of your key challenges in this particular case? Chang: Like with most cases involving sexual assault claims, a key challenge was responding to the defendant’s attacks on the plaintiff’s credibility. When Ms. Dean got in an Uber the night of her rape, she was 19 years old and alone. She was on her way home from a date and had been drinking even though she was underage. We knew from the outset that Uber would attack her character and credibility. And indeed, a central point in their opening was the claim that Ms. Dean had actually consented to having sex with the 49-year-old driver Uber sent to her that night. Also, Ms. Dean had suffered prior trauma (including assault and abuse by an ex-boyfriend) and we knew from discovery Uber would exploit that history to try to downplay the effect of the assault by the Uber driver. In fact, as our expert explained to the jury, people who have previously been assaulted typically suffer far more from the re-traumatization of a subsequent assault. Uber offered zero expert opinion to counter that important point. Walsh: Another challenge was overcoming the power of Uber’s forceful marketing, which absolutely followed us into the courtroom. Uber spends billions of dollars a year persuading people that Uber is safe and many millions of people, including several of our jurors, rely on those representations and rely on Uber to get around. Where a company has employed so much marketing to gain consumer trust, it can be difficult to overcome that mindset. Also, the reality is that when you consider all of the rides Uber sells—rides involving multiple people, rides taking place during the day, rides to and from work—the prevalence of sexual violence is low. Our task at trial was to show that for a subset of Uber rides—those happening late at night, when the rider is a woman, traveling alone, perhaps after drinking—the dangers of taking an Uber are very real, and very much concealed by Uber’s marketing. The driver was never criminally charged, and he initially maintained what happened in the car that night was consensual, right? Walsh: Yes. The tragic reality is that, even with our growing understanding of the prevalence of sexual violence in society, the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults are not criminally charged. Before trial, we moved to prevent Uber from offering evidence of the absence of a criminal charge, explaining that any probative value of that evidence was minimal and far outweighed by the prejudice of suggesting that because there was no charge, there was no assault. Judge Breyer granted that motion. Uber’s defense lawyers repeated a refrain that this trial was about “this driver, this rider, this trip.” Did you try to address some of their arguments that your marketing expert, sexual assault expert and law enforcement experts didn’t address the specifics of your client? Chang: Yes. Our strategy was to show that what happened on the night of Ms. Dean’s rape was not a random occurrence and did not happen in isolation. It was a culmination of actions Uber took, and failed to take, in protecting the safety of its customers and ensuring people understand the real risks. Through our experts, we showed that Uber knew that sexual assault was a foreseeable risk under the very conditions present here—including the characteristics and risk factors associated with this driver, this rider and this trip. The evidence showed that what happened was not only foreseeable, but preventable. In her rebuttal, Sarah London forcefully explained how all of the evidence we presented related to “this driver, this rider, this trip.” In the first trial in parallel litigation in California state court, jurors found Uber was negligent in failing to provide safe rides to women but not liable for the plaintiff’s sexual assault and awarded no damages. Did you learn anything from how the plaintiff’s team put on their case in that trial? London: Every trial is an opportunity to learn, and we had the great benefit of getting to observe the first trial, debriefing with the trial team and speaking with jurors. There were some meaningful differences between the cases, including the legal claims, time frame and jurisdiction. However, many of the defense themes were the same, and we were able to cite to portions of the record from the California trial to help us exclude certain arguments and evidence that we believed would deprive our client a fair trial in Arizona. Uber has been incredibly successful in defending its independent contractor model in employment litigation with drivers. How were you able to establish liability for apparent agency here? Walsh: The basic question here was whether Ms. Dean reasonably believed that the driver was acting on Uber’s behalf and within the scope of his apparent agency. And the answer was clearly yes. All of Uber’s advertising asks people to “ride with Uber,” to trust “Uber’s commitment to safety,” to “take Uber” when looking for a reliable way home. Yet, when someone gets hurt, suddenly Uber is simply a technology platform connecting independent third-party contractors to riders. In fact, Uber’s very first witness was an operations executive who insisted that it’s “wrong and inaccurate” to refer to drivers as “Uber drivers,” or to say someone is “taking an Uber.” During his direct examination, we downloaded multiple posts currently running on Uber’s social media channels using precisely that “wrong and inaccurate” language. Cross-examining the executive with that social media was a highlight of the trial for me. You asked for more than $140 million, including $120 million in punitive damages. Jurors awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. An Uber spokesman said the verdict “affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety.” What’s your read of the verdict? Chang: The most important part of the verdict is that the jury found in our client’s favor in the first bellwether trial of the MDL and held Uber responsible. That finding matters—not only for her, but for the broader litigation. We have learned so much from this bellwether, and we intend to prevail in obtaining punitive damages in future trials. Uber has already said that it will appeal based on jury instructions on the agency claim. London: Judge Breyer carefully and thoroughly considered this claim and the instructions. We are confident that the court made the correct rulings and that we will prevail on appeal. What comes next, both in this case and in the MDL? Are there other trial dates pending? London: We will continue to zealously pursue justice for victims. Our clients want to see industry reform and inform the public so that no one else has to suffer as they have. There are additional areas for discovery and possible sanctions that we intend to pursue based on what we learned in this trial. As mentioned above, the next trial is April 13 in North Carolina. There are several thousand more cases—we are hopeful the court will consider consolidating several cases together for trial, as there are many efficiencies to be gained. What will you remember most about this trial? Chang: One of the things I will remember about this trial is that both trial teams were comprised entirely of women, and the majority of our lawyers and support staff were women as well. These professionals made extraordinary sacrifices—leaving their spouses, their children and their families to live in Phoenix for weeks and work around the clock. There was a shared sense of purpose that drove the team to work creatively, collaboratively and relentlessly, even when everyone was exhausted. The level of talent, preparation and commitment—both at counsel table and behind the scenes—was truly extraordinary. But what I will remember the most is the fact that this result was possible because a 19-year-old young woman from Oklahoma had the courage to stand up to one of the most powerful companies in the world. Watching her walk into the courtroom, take the stand, hold her head high and tell her story—not just for herself, but for the safety of women on the platform—is something I will never forget. I have examined many plaintiffs over the course of my career, but conducting the direct examination of Jaylynn Dean was one of the most meaningful and memorable moments of my professional life. Walsh: I echo Debbie’s sentiments. To try a case where every lawyer at counsel’s table was a woman, in the federal courthouse bearing Justice O’Connor’s name, was a highlight of my career. To try this case on behalf of a young woman who came forward to stand up to a company like Uber, knowing that Uber would seek to discredit and attack her, well, that truly took my breath away. I will forever be grateful to Ms. Dean for her bravery, grace and refusal to be silenced. London: This trial was a dream come true. Ms. Dean was a true inspiration and propelled us forward through all of the challenges. Debbie and Alex are such extraordinary, gifted trial lawyers—I felt my trial superwoman muscles growing every day just being alongside them. Judge Breyer is the kind of judge that reminds you why you went into this profession—he is wise, fair, even-tempered and completely engaged in administering justice. Behind the scenes, we had the best trial support team hands down. From legal eagles to document masters to expert handlers, everyone shared the same sense of urgency and desire to bring our best case forward. For me, the most memorable moment was rebuttal—I will never forget how moving it was to deliver the passionate, unscripted arguments that had been building inside me since day one of this case.