MDL TrackerMiscellaneous

Lyft, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault

MDL No. 3171  ·  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
MDL No.
3171
Docket Type
Miscellaneous
Transferee Judge
Hon. Rita F. Lin
Centralized
2026-02-05
Actions Pending
106
As Of
2026-09-01
Funding Considerations

This docket consolidates claims by rideshare passengers alleging they were sexually assaulted by drivers of a competing rideshare platform and that the company failed to implement adequate safety measures, driver screening, or incident-response protocols to prevent foreseeable harm, closely paralleling the larger, more procedurally advanced MDL against a competing rideshare operator. Centralized in the Northern District of California in February 2026, the docket has grown to 106 pending actions, and a substantially larger population of related cases, roughly 2,000, is proceeding separately in a California state-court coordinated proceeding that has been active since 2020.

For a funder, this docket sits at an earlier procedural stage than its companion federal MDL against the other major rideshare platform: no case in either the federal or parallel state track has yet reached a jury verdict, no class has been certified, and no settlement fund exists. That means underwriting here should rely more heavily on the bellwether and common-carrier liability developments unfolding in the companion federal docket against the other rideshare operator as a directional signal, while recognizing this specific docket has not yet independently generated its own tested outcomes.

Given that earlier-stage posture, Criterica Capital's mass tort finance product applies to individual passenger claimants here, with pricing that should track the parallel, more advanced companion litigation closely while appropriately discounting for the fact that this docket's own liability and damages framework remains untested. A structure and litigation brief comparing this docket's posture to its companion federal matter is available.

Frequently Asked Questions
How does this docket's stage compare to the parallel Uber MDL?
+
Why does the companion Uber litigation matter for underwriting this docket?
+
Why is there a large parallel state-court case population alongside this federal MDL?
+
What Criterica Capital product applies, and how should it be priced?
+

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.

Litigation structure and resolution-risk brief on Criterica Intelligence →
Holding Lyft, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault claims or inventory?
Send the details and our institutional team will respond within one business day.