Lawyers often push hard in negotiations, but there are limits to how far zealous representation can go. A California attorney who told an Uber lawyer he “sounded like a pedophile” and compared him to a rapist during a meet‑and‑confer apparently crossed that line. Under a stipulation filed in court, he will no longer directly participate in any matters involving the opposing party for the remainder of the sexual assault litigation against the ride‑sharing company.
David Grimes, an attorney with the firm of Levin Simes LLP, made those disparaging statements and others during a March 9 meeting. Grimes is one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in California federal court as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL) related to sexual assaults allegedly committed by Uber drivers.
In a stipulation filed with the court on April 7, Levin Simes acknowledged that Grimes’s behavior during a meet-and-confer was inappropriate. It also said the firm is taking steps to address Grime’s actions. According to the stipulation, Grimes will no longer appear before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in person or by teleconference, and will avoid any interaction with the opposing parties.
Three days after the meeting in which Grimes made the offending statements, attorneys for Uber filed a complaint in federal court seeking a court order barring Grimes from further participation in the case. The motion said Grimes violated local rules requiring attorneys practicing before the court to practice “with the honesty, care, and decorum required for the fair and efficient administration of justice.”
According to Uber’s motion, Grimes made the following statements regarding one of Uber’s attorneys:
- Asked whether he was a pedophile
- Said he sounded like a pedophile
- Compared him to a rapist
- Referred to him as a “cocksucker”
- Referred to him as a scum bag and dirt bag
- Referred to him as an idiot and dumb
- Asked whether he was involved in sexual conduct during the meeting
- Made inappropriate references to the attorney’s daughter
Additionally, the motion said Grimes had insulted Uber’s attorney in a previous meeting. He allegedly said Uber’s attorneys “are just plain stupid;” “have your heads up your asses;” and “are saying some of the craziest shit I’ve ever heard in my life.”
Ongoing MDL against Uber
Survivors of sexual assaults allegedly committed by Uber rideshare drivers across the country have filed suits claiming the company is legally responsible for its drivers’ actions because it did not properly screen drivers. They also claim Uber failed to implement basic safety measures and ignored rider complaints. Those claims were consolidated into a single MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. The case is In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation.
In February, a jury in an Arizona federal court ordered Uber to pay a former passenger $8.5 million after finding she had been raped by a driver. The decision addressed only the Arizona plaintiff’s claims and is not binding on other cases that have been brought. However, the federal courts will treat the Arizona trial as a bellwether for other proceedings because the case’s MDL status allows certain procedural matters to be heard by the same judge, despite each case being tried individually. More than 3,000 plaintiffs across many states have joined the litigation.
Uber contends that its drivers are independent contractors and that the company is not liable for their actions. A jury in a California state court agreed with Uber in a September 2025 decision in which it found the company was not liable for a 2016 sexual assault committed by a driver.
Related Resources
- When the Social Media Lawyer’s Own Selfie Backfired (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Trump’s Presidential Library in Jeopardy Over a … Hug? (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- The Return of the Civilized Deposition? (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
