Skip to content
Plaintiffs have asked the federal judge overseeing the Uber Driver Sexual Assault MDL to consolidate multiple lawsuits for the first bellwether trial. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, who is presiding over more than 1,900 cases centralized in the Northern District of California, has not yet ruled on the request. The decision will shape the trajectory of this high-profile litigation involving passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers.
In MDLs, bellwether trials serve as early test cases to assess how juries might respond to evidence and arguments that are common across the litigation. While they do resolve individual claims, their broader purpose is to guide potential settlement negotiations and inform the strategy for remaining cases. Most plaintiffs in MDLs do not go to trial, so these test cases are critical to shaping outcomes for everyone involved, including a possible settlement.
Plaintiffs are urging the court to consolidate three or more survivors into the first trial rather than proceeding with a single-plaintiff case. Their attorneys argue that the similarities across the bellwether pool—ranging from allegations of negligent hiring and supervision to failures in safety technology and driver screening—make consolidated proceedings justified. They also emphasize that repeated expert testimony, shared corporate documents, and nearly identical legal theories permits consolidation in federal court when cases involve common questions of fact and law.
Beyond efficiency, plaintiffs contend that multi-plaintiff trials are essential for revealing systemic negligence. When several survivors from different states testify about comparable assaults, it reinforces the narrative that Uber’s misconduct was not isolated. It demonstrates a pattern of harm and foreseeability that weakens the common defense of blaming “lone bad actors.”
This proposed structure also strengthens the value of bellwether outcomes. A trial featuring three or more consistent, credible testimonies gives both sides a more realistic preview of how future juries may respond—especially in cases involving recurring themes of Uber’s alleged inaction and policy failures. If the first few bellwether trials result in significant plaintiff verdicts, it could compel Uber to propose a hefty settlement to resolve the rest of the cases.
This is why Uber opposes the request. The company argues that trying multiple cases together would unfairly bias the jury and offers no real efficiency gains. In a response filed the same day, Uber maintains that each case should be evaluated on its individual merits.
Plaintiffs are also asking the judge to slightly change the schedule to make the process more efficient. They want the trial cases to be chosen sooner and suggest setting different deadlines for motions and filings, depending on which cases are actually going to trial. This would help avoid spending time and money on cases that won’t be part of the first test trial, and keep the focus on preparing the trial-ready ones properly and on time.
If the judge approves the consolidation request, the first bellwether trial is still scheduled to begin on December 8, 2025. Regardless of whether the first trial features one plaintiff or several, its outcome will have major implications for the future of this litigation and potential Uber sexual assault settlement discussions.
If you or someone you love has been harmed by an Uber driver, you’re not alone. Learn more about your legal options and how to pursue justice by visiting our comprehensive Uber sexual assault lawsuit page.
