IN RE: Lyft, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: LYFT, INC. PASSENGER
SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3171
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in a District of Maryland action (J.E.) moves under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the
Western District of Washington.1 	This litigation consists of seventeen actions pending in ten
districts, as listed on Schedule A. 	The parties have notified the Panel of four related actions
pending in four districts.2 	Plaintiffs in seven actions and potential tag-along actions support
centralization in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in three of these actions alternatively
suggest 	centralization 	in 	the 	District 	of 	Massachusetts. 	Defendant 	Lyft, 	Inc., 	opposes
centralization and, alternatively, suggests centralization in the Northern District of Texas.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Northern District of California will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that they suffered sexual assault or harassment as a
result of Lyft’s failure to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers. 	The
actions present common factual issues arising from allegations that Lyft was aware of the risk of
sexual assault but failed: (1) to screen and background check drivers appropriately; (2) to train and
supervise drivers adequately; (3) to respond to complaints and feedback about sexual misconduct
from drivers; (4) to implement safety design changes to the Lyft app; and (5) to adopt standard
safety measures, such as video and audio surveillance. Plaintiffs bring similar claims, including
* 	Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, and Judge David C. Norton took
no part in the decision of this matter.
1 	After briefing concluded, movant sought to withdraw her motion to centralize, explaining
that she “no longer has standing” to bring her motion. The Panel Clerk denied that motion because
several plaintiffs had responded in support of centralization. 	Moreover, “the Panel may, on its
own initiative, consider transfer of any or all of the actions in those matters to any district or
districts.” Notice of Hearing Session dated December 19, 2025.
2 	These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.
Case MDL No. 3171 Document 61 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract, strict product liability, and failure to warn.
Common factual questions include: what representations Lyft made about safety; whether Lyft
had knowledge of the prevalence of sexual assault by its drivers; whether Lyft failed to adequately
conduct background checks of drivers and train drivers regarding sexual assault and harassment;
whether Lyft failed to adequately respond to complaints about drivers; and whether there were
safety measures that could have been implemented to protect passengers from sexual assault but
that Lyft chose not to adopt. 	Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.
Lyft’s primary argument against centralization is that there already exists a California state
court consolidated proceeding (JCCP), and plaintiffs should file their claims as part of that
proceeding, which already includes many claims brought by non-California residents about alleged
assaults that took place outside of California. 	See JCCP No. 5061, In re Lyft Rideshare Cases,
CJC-20-005061. Lyft argues that, because the Lyft JCCP has been proceeding for more than five
years and is procedurally advanced, it would be more efficient for plaintiffs to bring their claims
in that court.
Even if we were to find that a single consolidated proceeding in state court is the most just
and efficient path for all claims involving sexual assault by Lyft drivers, the Panel cannot require
these or any future plaintiffs to file in California state court. Were we to deny centralization here,
21 similar cases still would remain pending across twelve different federal courts, with the
possibility that more cases will be filed. It is far more efficient to coordinate a single federal MDL
with the proceedings in California state court than to informally coordinate so many cases filed
across the country. See, e.g., In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 923
F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (“[C]reation of a Plavix MDL will not only result in the
usual Section 1407 efficiencies, it also likely will facilitate coordination among all courts with
Plavix cases, simply because there will now be only one federal judge handling most or all federal
Plavix litigation.”). Absent centralization, there is no prospect for the currently pending federal
actions to proceed in one court.
Lyft further argues that plaintiffs’ counsel is motivated to create an MDL because they
disagree with the state court plaintiffs’ leadership counsel’s request for common benefit fees.
While we have found that, “where a Section 1407 motion appears intended to further the interests
of particular counsel more than those of the statute, we would certainly find less favor with it,”3
we also refrain from attempting to divine counsel’s motives for filing in a particular district.4
Parties are free to file in state or federal court as they choose, so long as jurisdictional requirements
are met. Notably, Lyft does not suggest that the claims in the cases before us are illegitimate or
that they were filed in inappropriate districts.
3 	In re CVS Caremark Corp. Wage & Emp. Pracs. Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d. 1377, 1379
(J.P.M.L. 2010).
4 	See id. (“[T]he Panel's primary purpose is not to divine the motives and strategies of the
various litigants. Indeed, those considerations are most often irrelevant to our decision making.”).
Case MDL No. 3171 Document 61 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
We find that the Northern District of California is the most appropriate transferee district
for this litigation. Eight of the 21 related actions are pending in this district, including the first-
filed actions. Lyft is headquartered in the Northern District of California, and centralization there
would facilitate coordination with the Lyft JCCP in San Francisco. 	We assign the litigation to
Judge Rita F. Lin, who presides over a related action and has not yet had the opportunity to preside
over multidistrict litigation. We are confident that Judge Lin will steer this litigation on an efficient
and prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin, for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Nathaniel M. Gorton
Acting Chair
Roger T. Benitez 	Dale A. Kimball
Madeline Cox Arleo
Case MDL No. 3171 Document 61 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 5

IN RE: LYFT, INC. PASSENGER
SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3171
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
MEANS v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:24−00177
SPANO v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:24−00799
STENCEL v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:24−01535
DOE NLG (B.J.) v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−07369
DOE (I.H.) v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07412
DOE (S.M.) v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−07929
DOE (R.P.) v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−07930
DOE CM v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:25−07396
Northern District of Georgia
J.S. v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−05350
Central District of Illinois
BLAND v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−02236
District of Massachusetts
A.D. v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−12423
District of Maryland
J.E. v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−02786
Western District of North Carolina
K.S. v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−00649
Southern District of New York
CLF L001 v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 7:25−08206
Northern District of Texas
JANE DOE (E.J.) v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−02464
Case MDL No. 3171 Document 61 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 5

-A2
Southern District of Texas
DOE v. LYFT, INC., C.A. No. 4:25−04346
Western District of Washington
K.T. v. LYFT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−01589
Case MDL No. 3171 Document 61 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 5