Cali. Supreme Court Weighs in on Fraudulent Concealment Claims in Uber Case

0
1590

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen dismissed Rattagan’s suit in August 2020. Rattagan appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging Judge Chen’s determination that Rattagan’s fraudulent concealment claims were barred by the economic loss rule since they stemmed from Rattagan’s stance that he was in an attorney-client relationship with Uber.

The district court also tossed the negligence and breach of the implied covenant claims as time-barred since they were filed after the two-year statute of limitations had run out. Rattagan did not appeal those rulings.

In 2021, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to answer its question on fraudulent concealment, and the court agreed to tackle the issue in February 2022.

Uber maintained throughout the litigation that its operations in Buenos Aires have always been legal and that all of Rattagan’s claimed injuries stemmed from Argentine governmental authorities, the media and local trade unions.

Jeffrey M. Davidson of Covington & Burling LLP, who represents Uber, argued in Tuesday’s hearing that Rattagan is simply looking to extend the economic loss rule exemptions because his other claims were time-barred.