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

Case Number

24CV03780

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 11/14/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

(1) For all reasons stated herein, the following motions are each continued to February 27, 2026: (a) the motion of defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC, for summary judgment or adjudication as to plaintiffs Francisca Solis and Jose Alvarado; (b) the motion of defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC, for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action and prayer for punitive damages; and (c) the motion of defendant Checkr, Inc., for summary judgment or adjudication (filed on July 25, 2025).

(2) Apart from any motion for a sealing order that may be filed in the future as discussed and authorized herein, the parties shall not, without leave of court, file any further papers in support of or in opposition to the motions of defendants described above.

(3) For all reasons stated herein, unless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk of the court is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents filed or lodged under seal on July 25, 2025: (a) the document entitled “Public Record Version (With Exhibit F Redacted; Sealed Version Lodged Conditionally Under Seal) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”; (b) the document entitled “Sealed Record Version (With Exhibit F) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (Volume 1 of 2); (c) the document entitled “Sealed Record Version (With Exhibit F) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (Volume 2 of 2); and (d) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Separate Statement In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”.

(4) For all reasons stated herein, unless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk of the court is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents filed or lodged under seal on August 6, 2025, by defendant Checkr, Inc.: (a) the document entitled “Filed Under Seal Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”; and (b) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Separate Statement In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”.

(5) For all reasons stated herein, unless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents lodged or filed under seal on October 6, 2025, by plaintiffs: (a) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities”; (b) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication”; (c) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication”; (d) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 1 of 3”; (e) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 2 of 3”; and (f) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 3 of 3”.

(6) For all reasons stated herein, unless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk of the court is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents filed or lodged under seal on October 10, 2025, by defendant Checkr, Inc.: (a) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Evidentiary Objections In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication; and (b) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Additional Facts”.

(7) Any opposition to any future motion for an order sealing any record described above must be filed and served within the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

(8) For all reasons stated herein, the clerk of the court is directed to permanently delete the following records filed or lodged under seal by plaintiffs on October 10, 2025: (a) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication of Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC Memorandum of Points and Authorities”; (b) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice In Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication of Issues of Uber”; (c) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement In Opposition To Defendant Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues”; (d) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Compendium of Evidence In Opposition To Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Defendant Uber (vol 1-3)”; (e) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Compendium of Evidence In Opposition To Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Defendant Uber (Vol 2-3)”; and (f) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Compendium of Evidence In Opposition To Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Defendant Uber (Vol 3-3)”.

(9) Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC, shall, on or before November 21, 2025, serve, and file proof of service of, notice of the court’s ruling herein on all parties to this action.

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: The court refers to parties by their first names to avoid confusion due to common surnames. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the 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 Silvia’s mother. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

Uber operates a “Transportation Network Company” which provides transportation options and vehicles through an online application (the Uber App). (FAC, ¶ 13.) Portier conducts business as Uber Eats, and, as a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber, runs the “Delivery Network Company” of Uber which provides on-demand food delivery services through the “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 the 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 their drivers through Checkr, which is a third-party investigative consumer reporting agency. (FAC, ¶¶ 19 & 52.) The background checks outsourced by the Uber Parties to Checkr are based on unverified information submitted by prospective drivers through either 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. (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, while working as a commercial driver for Uber and Uber Eats, Burger was operating his vehicle at speeds up to 120 miles per hour while intoxicated and struck a vehicle in which Silvia was a passenger, killing Silvia. (Id. at ¶¶ 73-76.) Though the Uber Parties employed Checkr to investigate Burgher’s criminal history and motor vehicle record, 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) separately filed in this action several motions for summary judgment or adjudication which plaintiffs oppose. These motions were set for hearing on October 24, 2025.

On October 24, after a hearing, the court entered a minute order (the Order) adopting its tentative ruling on the motions of defendants as follows:

“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.”

The court’s records reflect that no party to this action has filed a statement of correction by the deadline stated in the Order set forth above.

On November 3, 2025, Checkr filed a sealing statement as to the Checkr July MSJ.

On November 5, plaintiffs filed a sealing statement as to the Checkr July MSJ, and separately filed a sealing statement as to the Uber MSJ which was withdrawn by the Uber Parties on October 17, 2025, as noted in the Order above and in plaintiff’s sealing statement. (See Pl. Sealing Stmt. [Uber MSJ] at p. 3.)

The Uber Parties did not file a sealing statement by the deadline stated in the Order.

Analysis:

As no party has filed a statement of correction by the deadline stated in the Order set forth above, the court confirms its understanding that the three motions remaining on calendar for hearing are the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, and the Checkr July MSJ.

Checkr’s sealing statement:

In its sealing statement, Checkr states that the records it has lodged or filed under seal in support of the Checkr July MSJ include: (1) exhibits A, C, G, F and I (the Checkr Exhibits) to Checkr’s compendium of evidence (the Checkr COE); (2) Checkr’s separate statement (the Checkr SS); (3) Checkr’s objections to plaintiffs’ evidence (the Checkr Objections); and (4) Checkr’s response to plaintiff’s separate statement of material facts (the Checkr Response SS) (collectively, the Checkr Records). (Checkr Sealing Stmt., ¶¶ 1-4.)

Checkr further states that it lodged the Checkr Exhibits, the Checkr COE, and the Checkr SS under seal on August 6, 2025, and that it lodged the Checkr Objections and Checker Response SS under seal on October 10, 2025. (Checkr Sealing Stmt., ¶¶ 1-4.) Checkr has also filed redacted versions of the Checkr Records in the public file. (Ibid.)

Checkr asserts that the orders which authorize Checkr to lodge or file the Checkr Records under seal include the “Joint Stipulation and Order to Remove Currently Filed Separate Statement and Exhibits A, C, G, F and I Contained in the Compendium of Evidence Submitted in Support of Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication From the Public Record and Refile Them Under Seal” signed by the court August 4, 2025, (the August Order). (Checkr Seal. Stmt., ¶¶ 1(iv), 2(iv), 3(iv) & 4(iv).) Checkr contends that the August Order approved a request by Checkr to re-file the Checkr Exhibits, the Checkr COE, and the Checkr SS, under seal, which Checkr had inadvertently filed in the public record. (Ibid.)

As to the Checkr SS, the Checkr Objections, and the Checkr Response SS, Checkr asserts that these documents include the same or similar information that the court purportedly authorized to be sealed pursuant to the August Order, and that this information has been redacted from the public file. (Checkr Seal. Stmt., ¶¶ 1(iv), 2(iv), 3(iv) & 4(iv).) Checkr further asserts that the protective order entered in this case on November 26, 2024, (the Protective Order) allows the parties to seal materials designated as confidential. (Ibid.)

“Court records are open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality.” (McGuire v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1685, 1687; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c) [“[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].)

The California Rules of Court provide that records may not be filed under seal “based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).) Instead, “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551 (b)(1).) “The sealed records rules apply ... to ‘discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.’ [Citations.]” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 492.)

The Protective Order relied on by Checkr in filing or lodging the Checkr Record under seal expressly provides: “Where any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules.” (Nov. 26, 2024, Protective Order, ¶ 17.) Noted above, the Checkr Records are submitted by Checkr as a basis for adjudication of the Checkr July MSJ. The court has no record showing that Checkr has filed and served an appropriate noticed motion for an order sealing the Checkr Records. Under the circumstances present here, and for all reasons discussed above, the Protective Order does not provide Checkr with authority to file the Checkr Records under seal.

In addition, a record may not be filed under seal unless the court expressly finds facts establishing that “[t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record[,] [¶] [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record[,] [¶] [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed[,] [¶] [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored[,] and [¶] [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a) & (d).)  “In order to make the required “reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records”, a court must “identify[] and weigh[] competing interests and concerns” by “identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; [] identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and [] identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

The August Order does not include any express findings of fact establishing the matters described above. (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e)(1)(B) [the court’s order must “[d]irect the sealing of only those documents and pages ... that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal”].)

In addition, the court’s records reflect that on July 25, 2025, concurrently with the filing of the Checkr July MSJ, Checkr filed the Checkr COE, which redacts exhibit F from the public file, and the Checkr SS, and separately lodged the Checkr COE under seal. The proposed order submitted with the parties’ joint stipulation described above contains inappropriate and sloppy language regarding the filing of the Checkr COE and Checkr SS under seal. Notwithstanding this sloppy language, the court intended by its August Order to only allow Checkr to lodge exhibits A, C, G, F, and I to the Checkr COE, and the Checkr SS, conditionally under seal pending the determination of a future noticed motion for an order sealing these records pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, as contemplated in and required by the Protective Order.

Moreover, the August Order does not address the Checkr Objections or the Checkr Response SS, or any material or information appearing in these records. Absent an appropriate motion to seal the Checkr Objections or Checkr Response SS, and for all further reasons discussed above, Checkr has failed to explain why it is authorized to file these records, or any material or information appearing in these records, under seal.

The court requires an appropriate and proper record on which to determine the Checkr July MSJ. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will direct the clerk of the court to transfer the Checkr Records to the public file unless an appropriate motion to seal these records is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025. Furthermore, any motion to seal the Checkr Records, or any material or information that has been redacted from the public file of these records, must include, on a point-by-point basis with respect to each category or type of information or material for which Checkr seeks a sealing order, factual and legal argument sufficient to demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right to access the records or information, with citations to relevant authority. The motion must also include specific citations to each record or information appearing in a record that has been redacted from the public file, on a line-by-line basis with page numbers sufficient to enable the court to locate that record or information. The motion must also be sufficient to enable the court to make the express findings set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(1) through (5), and the order required under rule 2.550(e).

The court will further require that any opposition to any motion to seal the Checkr Records be filed and served within the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

To allow sufficient time to resolve any motion for a sealing order that may be filed in the future, the court will continue the hearing on the Checkr July MSJ. Apart from any future motion for a sealing order as authorized herein, the parties shall not, without leave of court, file any further papers in support of or in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ.

Plaintiffs’ sealing statement:

As to the Checkr July MSJ, plaintiffs’ sealing statement states that the following records were filed or lodged under seal by plaintiffs on October 6, 2025: (1) plaintiffs’ opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (2) plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (3) plaintiffs’ separate statement in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; and (4) plaintiffs’ compendium of exhibits in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ (collectively, the Plaintiff Records). (Pl. Seal. Stmt. at pp. 2-3.)

Though plaintiffs assert that the Protective Order authorizes the filing or lodging under seal of the Plaintiff Records, plaintiffs state that they lodged these records under seal “as a purely precautionary measure to avoid any allegation by defendants, or others, of potential violation of” the Protective Order. (Pl. Seal. Stmt. at p. 4, ll. 6-8.) Plaintiffs further state that they “do not believe, nor assert, nor advocate for, any filing, whatsoever, in this matter, ... to remain under seal....” (Id. at ll. 8-10.)

The same reasoning and analysis apply here. Though no party to this action, including Checkr, has filed a motion or application to seal the Plaintiff Records within the time prescribed in California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(3)(B), it appears to the court that plaintiffs have not provided the written notice required under rule 2.551(b)(3)(A)(iii), when lodging the Plaintiff Records. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the court will direct the clerk to place these records in the public file unless an appropriate motion for an order sealing the Plaintiff Records is filed and served on or before December 1.

Plaintiffs also separately filed a sealing statement identifying additional records filed or lodged by plaintiffs under seal in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to the Uber MSJ which, as noted above and in plaintiffs’ sealing statement, was withdrawn on October 17, 2025, pursuant to the Uber Notice. As the Uber MSJ has been withdrawn and no party has filed an appropriate motion to seal those records, the court will order these lodged records to be permanently deleted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).)

To the extent any additional records or materials not identified or discussed herein have been lodged or filed under seal by as a basis for adjudicating the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, or the Checkr July MSJ, the court will, absent the filing and service of an appropriate motion to seal those records by the deadline stated herein, direct those records or materials to be placed in the public file before determining the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, or the Checkr July MSJ.

Plaintiffs’ amended opposing papers:

On November 3, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and Checkr’s joinder to that motion (collectively, the Amended Solis/Alvarado Opposition), stating that plaintiffs opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ will be based on that amended opposition. (See Pl. Amended Opp. Solis/Alvarado MSJ at p. 2, ll. 7-13.) The Amended Solis/Alvarado Opposition is support by an amended compendium of evidence (the Amended Solis/Alvarado COE) and an amended separate statement of disputed and additional material facts in response to the Uber Parties’ separate statement (the Amended Solis/Alvarado SS).

Plaintiffs have also filed an amended compendium of evidence (the Amended Punitive Damages COE) and a second amended separate statement (the Amended Punitive Damages SS) in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to the Punitive Damages MSJ.

Plaintiffs also filed on November 3, separate statements responding to the separate statements filed by Checkr in support of its joinders to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and the Punitive Damages MSJ.

On November 10, 2025, the Uber Parties filed objections to the Amended Solis/Alvarado Opposition, the Amended Solis/Alvarado COE, the Amended Solis/Alvarado SS, the Amended Punitive Damages COE, and the Amended Punitive Damages SS (collectively, the Amended Papers), on the grounds that these amended documents are untimely, contain new evidence or argument, and were not authorized by the court. Checkr joins in these objections.

The court understands the Amended Papers filed by plaintiffs and described above to supersede and replace the former versions of these papers previously filed by plaintiffs. For these reasons, the court will consider only the Amended Papers, and not the prior versions of these documents, and the Uber Parties and Checkr’s objections to these papers only, when determining the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and Punitive Damages MSJ.

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the court will also continue the hearing on the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and Punitive Damages MSJ. Apart from any motion for a sealing order authorized herein, the parties shall not, without leave of court, file any further papers in support of or in opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ or the Punitive Damages MSJ.