Case: Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
3:17-cv-02664 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: May 9, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On May 9, 2017, two individuals from Jackson, Mississippi who use electric wheelchairs to travel filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Uber Technologies, Inc and its subsidiary, Rasier LLC (Collectively, “Uber”). The case was assigned to District Judge Richard Seeborg. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that Uber violated its legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible rides through the Uber app. A group of plaintiffs from New Orleans filed a separate, functionally identical complaint (Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc.) on October 26, 2017, which the court related to this case on November 14, 2017.
Under Title III of the ADA, a private entity primarily engaged in the business of transporting people may not discriminate from use of its services on the basis of disability. Specifically, under section 12184(b)(2)(A), covered entities must provide reasonable modifications to their services that would enable persons with disabilities to enjoy those services. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Uber could provide access to wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) through its app—a service Uber provides in other cities comparable to Jackson—and its failure to do so constitutes a violation of the ADA. The plaintiffs also alleged that Uber violated the CDPA under a similar theory, along with a claim that Uber’s failure to provide WAV service violates California’s UCL. The plaintiffs argued that companies who violate laws like the ADA and CDPA violate the UCL by obtaining an unfair advantage compared to companies like taxi service providers who comply with the law.
The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to require Uber to bring their service into compliance with the ADA and CDPA by offering WAV service in Jackson as well as damages, restitution, and attorney fees.
Uber moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Mississippi on August 17, 2017, which Judge Seeborg denied on October 11 because Uber is headquartered in the Northern District’s jurisdiction.
Uber moved for judgment on the pleadings on December 22, 2017. Uber argued that the plaintiffs couldn’t show they had been injured because they hadn’t actually downloaded the Uber app and so lacked standing under Title III of the ADA. Uber also argued that they were not a transportation company under the definition of Title III because they don’t own or lease vehicles and merely facilitate a transaction between two private parties. Finally, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the California law elements of their complaint because the alleged harm did not occur in the state. The plaintiffs contended they were injured in California because the decision not to offer WAVs in Mississippi was made in California.
Judge Seeborg ruled on Uber’s motion on March 1, 2018, denying the ADA elements but granting with respect to California law. According to Judge Seeborg, the ADA does not require parties to engage in “futile gestures” where they know they can’t use a service because of their disability. The plaintiffs’ allegation that they had notice that Uber did not operate WAVs in Jackson was sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings. Judge Seeborg also ruled that Uber’s status as a transportation company was a mixed question of law and fact and wasn’t suitable for resolution in a judgment on the pleadings. With respect to the plaintiffs’ California claims, Judge Seeborg ruled that the plaintiffs’ alleged injury happened in Jackson, and the fact that it could be traced back to California was not legally significant. The plaintiffs’ complaint was essentially that the Uber app in Jackson was deficient compared with the app in other cities, and so the harm alleged occurred in Jackson. 2018 WL 1116725.
On July 17, 2018 the parties of this case and the New Orleans case agreed to consolidate fact discovery, but each group of plaintiffs continued to file motions separately and remained docketed separately.
Uber had filed an interlocutory appeal in the Namisnak case on May 16, 2018. While the appeal was in progress, the plaintiffs and Uber jointly agreed to stay the district court proceedings for a total of 18 months, which took effect on November 5, 2018.
On May 21, 2020 the Crawford plaintiffs’ stay ended. They amended their complaint on May 21, 2020, incorporating Judge Seeborg’s previous rulings from the Namisnak case. Consolidated fact discovery began the same day.
One of the plaintiffs in the Crawford case dismissed their claims and exited the case on December 10, 2020.
For the remainder of the case, the Crawford and Namisnak plaintiffs generally filed identical motions but the cases remained docketed separately. Uber in turn filed separate, identical motions in each case. The court’s orders addressed both sets of plaintiffs together but appeared in both dockets.
(Continued from Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc.)
On April 19, 2021 the Crawford and Namisnak plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Uber is a transportation company and the modifications the plaintiffs sought were reasonable. This motion appears only in the Crawford docket. On April 20, 2021, Uber filed its own motion for summary judgment, arguing again that the plaintiffs lacked Title III standing because they did not download the Uber app, that Uber is not a transportation company, that the ADA does not require WAV service as a matter of law, and that the plaintiffs’ requested modifications cannot be proven reasonable at trial. On the same day, Uber filed motions in limine to exclude proposed testimony offered by two of the plaintiffs’ experts, in essence arguing that the opinions offered by both experts were improper legal conclusions. On May 19, 2021, the plaintiffs moved to strike proposed testimony from one of Uber’s lay witnesses as containing expert opinion.
Judge Seeborg ruled on the cross motions for summary judgment and the pretrial motions on August 26, 2021. He denied both motions in limine because they did not dispute expert qualifications or methods but rather the admissibility of particular testimony. He denied the motion to strike because it was improper to raise it in motions rather than at trial according to the court’s local rules.
Both motions for summary judgment were denied in part and granted in part. Both motions were denied with respect to the reasonableness of the modifications sought, as those are factual questions for trial. Judge Seeborg denied Uber’s motion challenging the plaintiffs’ standing based on the “futile gesture” doctrine and Uber’s failure to show the plaintiffs didn’t actually intend to use Uber if it provided WAV service. He granted the plaintiffs’ motion that Uber was a covered entity under Title III of the ADA because the plaintiffs introduced facts in which Uber called itself a transportation company and exerts control over its drivers and Uber did not create a dispute about whether these facts are true. Finally, the plaintiffs had introduced a new theory in the motions for summary judgment—that Uber’s policies screened drivers from offering WAV service—and Judge Seeborg granted Uber’s motion for summary judgment that this argument was improperly raised for the first time in the pleadings rather than the complaint.
The plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to file an amended complaint (to incorporate the “screening” theory) on September 7, 2021, which the court granted on October 18, 2021 over Uber's objection that it was a prejudicial undue delay. Judge Seeborg held that the plaintiffs' new claim rested on the same underlying ADA violation theory and so Uber was alreadyon notice of the facts and underlying theory of the new claim. 2021 WL 4846893.
The plaintiffs filed their final amended complaints on October 20, 2021. Uber filed a partial motion for summary judgment on December 23, 2021, arguing that the screening claim was not supported by any evidence in the record and that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the claim because the cause was too remote from the injury. The Court ordered an expedited briefing schedule the same day in order to resolve the issue before the forthcoming trial. Judge Seeborg denied Uber’s motion on January 7, 2022, holding that that preventing WAVs from operating on the general platform (UberX) was not too remote an injury to give plaintiffs standing under the ADA. He also held that the plaintiffs’ argument that Uber’s written policies governing the types of cars that can operate on the platform effectively prohibit WAVs was enough to introduce a dispute of fact. 2022 WL 74161.
Shortly thereafter, the Court commenced a bench trial, jointly trying both the Crawford and Namisnak cases, which lasted three days—January 19, 21, and 24, 2022. The parties presented evidence on the reasonableness of Uber providing WAV service in New Orleans and Jackson, covering cost, methods of implementing WAV service, and Uber’s implementation of WAVs in other cities. Over the following two months, the parties filed motions to strike testimony and trial briefs before making their closing arguments in a separate hearing on April 25, 2022.
Judge Seeborg issued his opinion and order on July 25, 2022, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that their requested modification—that Uber offer WAV service in their cities—was reasonable. The plaintiffs therefore did not prevail on their claim that Uber violated Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(2)(A)) for failure to make a reasonable modification. He also held that, even though Uber’s policies did screen WAVs from their platform, the nature of UberX meant that even if WAVs were permitted, there was no guarantee that a person who required a WAV would be matched with one. Since the policy that functionally disallowed WAVs to operate on the UberX platform did not itself screen out people with disabilities, the plaintiffs failed in their screening claim (42 U.S.C. §12184(b)(1)) as well. 616 F.Supp.3d 1001.
On August 22, 2022 both the Crawford plaintiff and the Namisnak plaintiffs filed a notice of Appeal to the the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As of November 2022, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Terry Howard (10/12/2022)
Related Cases
Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Northern District of California (2017)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6196702/parties/scott-crawford-v-uber-technologies-inc/
Bizer, Andrew David (California)
Coco, Jennifer M (California)
Attorney, Anne Marie (California)
Attorney, Kathy Hua (California)
Capell, Julie Marie (California)
Attorney, Anne Marie (California)
Attorney, Kathy Hua (California)
Capell, Julie Marie (California)
Daniels, Jacob W. (California)
Esquire, Stephanie Schuster, (California)
Estevez, Anne-Marie (California)
Grumer, Janet Lynn (California)
Harvey, Patrick A (California)
Killian, Bryan Michael (California)
Kollm, Clara Noelle (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6196702/scott-crawford-v-uber-technologies-inc/
Last updated July 28, 2026, 9:16 p.m.
Docket for: Scott Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Accommodations/ Contracting/ Organizational Discrimination
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 9, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two individuals who use electric wheelchairs to get around, from Jackson, Mississippi.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Uber Technologies, Inc
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:17-cv-02664
Northern District of California 3:17-cv-06124
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 18-15860
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Case Summary of Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43465/ (last updated 10/12/2022).