Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco et al vs Uber Technologies Inc et al

Case Number

24CV03780

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the hearing on the motions for summary judgment or adjudication filed by defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Portier, LLC, and Checkr, Inc., is continued to November 14, 2025. The parties shall appear at the present hearing to confirm the correctness of the court’s understanding as to the motions which remain on calendar, as stated herein. To the extent any party disagrees with the court’s understanding as stated herein, that party shall, on or before November 5, 2025, file and serve the statement of correction described in this ruling. In addition, each party who as lodged or filed under seal any material in support of or in opposition of any motion by defendants as further discussed herein, shall, on or before November 5, 2025, file and serve the sealing statement described herein.

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC, shall give notice of the court’s ruling on all parties, and, on or before October 31, 2025, file proof of service of that notice.

Background:

The first amended complaint (FAC) filed on June 6, 2023, by plaintiffs the Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco (Silvia) by and through its successor in interest Ricardo Velasco (Ricardo), Ricardo, Juan Velasco (Juan), Ana Velasco (Ana), Kasandra Velasco (Kasandra), Monica Velasco (Monica), Jose Alvarado (Jose) by and through his guardian ad litem Ana, and Francisca Solis (Solis) (collectively, plaintiffs) against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), Portier, LLC (Portier), Checkr, Inc. (Checkr), and Andrew Raymond Burgher (Burgher) is the operative pleading. (Note: Due to common familial surnames, the court will refer to plaintiffs by their first names. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in plaintiffs’ operative FAC:

Ricardo is the husband of Silvia, and Juan, Ana, Kasandra, and Monica are Silvia’s children. (FAC, ¶¶ 6-10.) Jose is Silvia’s biological grandson, and Solis is the mother of Silvia. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

Uber operates a Transportation Network Company which provides transportation options and vehicles for users of its services through an online application (the Uber App). (FAC, ¶ 13.) Portier, who conducts business as Uber Eats, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber that runs the Delivery Network Company of Uber which provides on-demand food delivery services through an “Uber Eats” mobile phone application (the Uber Eats App). (Id. at ¶¶ 14 & 16.) Uber and Portier (collectively, the Uber Parties) employ drivers through the Uber App and Uber Eats App. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Portier generates leads for Uber Eats drivers through the Uber Eats App to facilitate the delivery of food to customers, and holds the insurance certificate for insurance carried by Uber. (Id. at ¶¶ 16 & 18.)

The Uber Parties perform background investigations of its drivers through Checkr, which is a third-party investigative consumer reporting agency. (FAC, ¶¶ 19 & 52.) The background checks which the Uber Parties outsource to Checkr are based on unverified information submitted by prospective drivers either through the Uber Eats App or a website, and do not require biometric identifiers such as a fingerprint. (Id. at ¶ 46.) As a result, the background checks performed by Checkr on behalf of the Uber Parties fail to uncover criminal conduct and driver histories due to Uber and Portier’s self-imposed requirement for expediency. (Ibid.)

Burgher entered into a Technology Services Agreement with the Uber Parties in which Burgher agreed that Burgher’s transportation of passengers or delivery of food for Uber and Portier furthered an employer-employee relationship. (FAC, ¶ 61.) On October 26, 2021, Silvia was the passenger in a vehicle which was, suddenly and without warning, violently struck by a vehicle operated by Burgher. (Id. at ¶ 73.) At the time of the incident, Burgher was working as a commercial driver for Uber and Uber Eats. (Id. at ¶ 74.) Prior to the incident, Burgher had been operating his vehicle at speeds up to 120 miles per hour while intoxicated. (Id. at ¶¶ 75-76.)

Though the Uber Parties employed Checkr to investigate Burgher’s criminal history and motor vehicle records, Checkr failed to identify Burgher’s prior criminal convictions which showed, among other things, that Burgher was on probation for a second “DUI” conviction. (Id. at ¶ 82.)

The FAC alleges four causes of action: (1) negligence (against all defendants); (2) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention (against Uber, Portier, and Checkr); (3) wrongful death (against all defendants); and (4) survival action (against all defendants).

On December 15, 2023, Uber and Portier separately answered the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

Burgher filed an answer to the FAC on January 16, 2024, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

Checkr answered the FAC on February 22, 2024, also generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

The Uber Parties and Checkr (collectively, defendants) have filed in this action various motions for summary judgment or adjudication which plaintiffs oppose.

Analysis:

As a result of what appear to be missing documents, mislabeled filings, and conflicting information appearing within the parties’ filings, the extensive record in this case is confused as to the motions for summary judgment or adjudication by defendants that remain on calendar for hearing on October 24, 2025.

Relevant here, on November 21, 2024, the Uber Parties filed three motions for summary judgment or, alternatively, adjudication, one as to plaintiffs Francisca Solis & Jose Alvarado (the Solis/Alvarado MSJ), one as to all causes of action alleged in the FAC (the Uber MSJ), and one as to the fourth cause of action and claim for punitive damages alleged in the FAC (the Punitive Damages MSJ) (collectively, the Uber Motions).

On November 25, 2024, defendant Checkr, Inc., (Checkr) filed an “amended” notice and motion for summary judgment (the Checkr MSJ). Though the Checkr MSJ indicates that it is an “amended” motion, the court has no record showing that Checkr filed a motion for summary judgment prior to this date.

On July 24, 2025, the parties submitted a joint stipulation (the Stipulation) which states that Checkr is “concurrently ... filing a Notice of Withdrawal of [the Checkr MSJ] because Checkr will be filing a new Motion for Summary Judgment on or before July 25, 2025, in order to incorporate the extensive deposition testimony and evidence obtained after the filing of the original Checkr MSJ.” (Stip. at p. 2, ll. 14-17.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties agreed to continue the hearing on the Uber Motions to October 24, and to set a hearing for the forthcoming “new” Checkr motion on that same date.

Though the court entered its order on the Stipulation on July 24, the court has no record showing that Checkr filed a notice of withdrawal of the Checkr MSJ.

Notwithstanding that Checkr did not formally withdraw the Checkr MSJ, Checkr filed its “new” motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication (the Checkr July MSJ) on July 25, 2025.

On October 17, 2025, the Uber Parties filed a notice (the Uber Notice) stating that they withdraw the motion captioned “Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint”. The court has no record showing that the Uber Parties filed a motion with this caption. For this reason, the court understands the Uber Notice as a withdrawal of the Uber MSJ.

Based on information appearing in the record and described above, it appears to the court that three motions remain on calendar for hearing on October 24, 2025: (1) the Solis/Alvarado MSJ; (2) the Punitive Damages MSJ; and (3) the Checkr July MSJ. 

The court requires accuracy in its records. As the present record is, for all reasons discussed above, confused and convoluted, the court will require the parties to appear at the hearing to confirm that the court’s understanding as stated above is correct.

To the extent a party disagrees with the court’s understanding as stated above, the court will require that party to, on or before November 5, 2025, file and serve a statement (the statement of correction) identifying any motion for summary judgment or adjudication by any defendant not described above which was set and remains on calendar for hearing on October 24, 2025. The statement of correction must include the date any such motion was filed.

If no party files a statement of correction by the deadline stated above, the court will presume its understanding is correct and will, at a hearing to be set in the future as further discussed below, address only the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, and the Checkr July MSJ.

The record relevant to this proceeding also reflects that the parties have filed or lodged under seal material, including memorandums, declarations, exhibits, and other documents, in support of and in opposition to each of the motions described above. The court also requires that its records comply with applicable statutory and other legal authority, including as to any “discovery materials that are ... submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings[]” that may appear in those records. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(3); see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208, fn. 25 [discussion of the “First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court as a basis for adjudication.”].)
 

For all reasons discussed above, to the extent any party has filed or lodged any memorandum, exhibit, declaration, or other document or material under seal in support of or in opposition to the motions for summary judgment or adjudication discussed or at issue herein, the court will require that party to file and serve a statement (the sealing statement) that must include all of the following information set forth in sufficient detail to enable the court to determine whether the material may be appropriately filed or lodged under seal under the circumstances present here: (1) information sufficient to identify each memorandum, opposition, declaration, exhibit, document, or other material filed or lodged under seal by that party in connection with any motion discussed herein; (2) the date on which that party filed or lodged the material under seal; (3) the motion or opposition to which the material filed or lodged under seal by that party relates; (4) the date of filing, if any, of the public redacted version of the material filed or lodged under seal by the party; and (5) the specific order or orders authorizing the material to be filed or lodged under seal, including the date and circumstances under which any such order was entered.

Any party who is required by this ruling to file and serve a sealing statement shall file and serve that statement no later than November 5, 2025. To the extent a party has lodged or filed under seal any material in support of or in opposition to any motion discussed herein, and fails to file a sufficient sealing statement by the deadline stated above, the court will order that material to be filed in the public record before determining the motions which remain at issue.

Though nothing herein shall preclude any party from filing an appropriate noticed motion for an order to file under seal any material or record submitted in support of or in opposition to the motions discussed herein, the parties are prohibited from filing any such request an ex parte basis.

Further, in the interests of judicial efficiency considering the confused nature of the present record and the matters described above, the court will continue the hearing to November 14, 2025. The parties shall appear at the continued hearing and be prepared to address the status of the present record, including in regard to any material lodged or filed under seal, and a continued hearing date for the motions which remain on calendar. The court will also continue the case management conference to November 14.

The court will also order the Uber Parties to give notice of the court’s ruling herein on all parties to this action, and file proof of service of that notice on or before October 31, 2025.