Latest / Bloomberg Law / Luigi Mangione's Outburst & Uber's Court Loss

Transcript

Luigi Mangione's Outburst & Uber's Court Loss · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:12
Speaker 2: Luigi Mangioni railed about double jeopardy during an unusual courtroom
0:17
Speaker 2: outburst after a judge set his state trial for June
0:21
Speaker 2: eighth leapfrogging and October trial date set by a judge
0:25
Speaker 2: for his federal trial. Mangioni's defense team objected to the
0:30
Speaker 2: June date, saying they won't be ready in time and
0:33
Speaker 2: that their client faces a threat of double jeopardy. As
0:36
Speaker 2: court officers led him from the courtroom, Mangioni shouted, it's
0:41
Speaker 2: the same trial twice. One plus one equals two. This
0:46
Speaker 2: is double jeopardy by any common sense definition. Mangioni is
0:51
Speaker 2: charged with killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a
0:55
Speaker 2: Manhattan sidewalk in December of twenty twenty four. Both the
0:59
Speaker 2: state and the federal government are trying him for Thompson's killing.
1:03
Speaker 2: His lawyers have pushed for the federal trial to go first,
1:07
Speaker 2: which could bar the state trial from happening because of
1:11
Speaker 2: New York's double jeopardy protections. At Friday's hearing, Mangioni's defense attorney,
1:17
Speaker 2: Karen Friedman Agnifilo repeatedly said the June trial day places
1:22
Speaker 2: an unfair burden on Mangioni's team to prepare for the
1:26
Speaker 2: federal and state trials at the same time. Quote, mister
1:29
Speaker 2: Mangioni is being put in an untenable situation because of
1:34
Speaker 2: this tug of war between two different prosecution offices. Judge
1:38
Speaker 2: Gregory Carrow's response was, be ready on June eighth.
1:42
Speaker 1: That's it.
1:43
Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David voriachis so, David, basically,
1:49
Speaker 2: Manhattan prosecutors are fighting with federal prosecutors over who gets
1:54
Speaker 2: to try Mangoni first.
1:56
Speaker 3: That's correct. The judge in the federal case ruled that
2:03
Speaker 3: Mangione could not be tried on a murder count that
2:06
Speaker 3: could lead to the death penalty, which is what the
2:09
Speaker 3: Trump administration was looking for now. This would be the
2:12
Speaker 3: death penalty if the jury found him guilty and then
2:16
Speaker 3: the jury then decided that he should be put to death.
2:20
Speaker 3: She took that option off the table for legal reasons,
2:24
Speaker 3: saying that essentially the underlying charge or the related charge
2:29
Speaker 3: of stalking with the intent to kill, was not the
2:34
Speaker 3: appropriate one to use with this murder count, So she
2:39
Speaker 3: dismissed the murder count and a firearms offense, but left
2:43
Speaker 3: the stalking charges, and there are two stalking charges for Mangeon,
2:47
Speaker 3: who still could face life in prison if he's convicted
2:51
Speaker 3: of those. The judge set a September eighth date to
2:56
Speaker 3: begin jury selection in that case, unless the prosecutors appeal
3:02
Speaker 3: her ruling, and it's not clear that they will. Meanwhile,
3:07
Speaker 3: just last week, the judge in the state case, who
3:11
Speaker 3: had previously thrown out a first degree murder charge and
3:15
Speaker 3: left in place the second degree murder charge, set a
3:19
Speaker 3: June eighth trial date for Mangione, and he said that
3:25
Speaker 3: he would move that to September eighth if the federal
3:29
Speaker 3: prosecutors appeal.
3:31
Speaker 2: I thought long ago the Feds had said that they
3:33
Speaker 2: would let the state go first, and Judge Caar noted quote,
3:38
Speaker 2: it appears the federal government has renegged on its agreement
3:42
Speaker 2: to let the state, which has done most of the
3:44
Speaker 2: work in this case, go first.
3:47
Speaker 3: There has been discussion of an agreement. It's just a
3:51
Speaker 3: little unclear how that agreement was supposed to be enforced.
3:55
Speaker 3: And the judge in the federal case went ahead and
3:59
Speaker 3: set a September trial date because the judge in the
4:02
Speaker 3: state case had not acted, and there was a very
4:09
Speaker 3: intense hearing on Friday, after which Mangione was shackled and
4:15
Speaker 3: being let out of court, and he turned and shouted
4:19
Speaker 3: to the gallery, it's the same trial. Twice one plus
4:23
Speaker 3: one is too double jeopardy by any common sense definition. Now,
4:28
Speaker 3: this is not a normal turn of events where the
4:31
Speaker 3: defendant would make such a pronouncement to the gallery. What
4:36
Speaker 3: he's referring to is that his lawyers have argued consistently
4:42
Speaker 3: that by charging him for the same act, the allegation
4:46
Speaker 3: is that he murdered United Health Group executive Brian Thompson,
4:52
Speaker 3: by charging him twice for the same act, that that
4:55
Speaker 3: amounts to double jeopardy, which is barred in the US
4:58
Speaker 3: Constitution and under New York state law. So there's been
5:02
Speaker 3: a lot of jockeying between federal and state prosecutors to
5:07
Speaker 3: see who was going to go first.
5:10
Speaker 2: Isn't it accepted that it's two different sovereigns and you
5:13
Speaker 2: can try a person in state court and federal court.
5:16
Speaker 3: I think it's unclear how the facts of this case
5:20
Speaker 3: will play out and how the law will play out
5:23
Speaker 3: in this case. There's clearly competition, and you could imagine that, say,
5:29
Speaker 3: the judges or the prosecutors would get together and resolve this.
5:34
Speaker 3: But this seems to be proceeding not in an amicable fashion.
5:39
Speaker 2: If you look at it without all the publicity, it
5:41
Speaker 2: seems to be a classic state case. It's a killing
5:44
Speaker 2: on the streets of Manhattan.
5:46
Speaker 3: It is more traditionally a state prosecution. And the judge
5:49
Speaker 3: said that, the State Court judge said that on Friday,
5:52
Speaker 3: that this is more traditionally something that would go on.
5:55
Speaker 3: And that's something that the prosecutors for Manhattan District Attorney
6:00
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg have been arguing all along. That they investigated
6:04
Speaker 3: this case with the New York Police Department, and they
6:08
Speaker 3: collected all the evidence and put out the bulletins that
6:12
Speaker 3: led to Mengione's arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and that the
6:19
Speaker 3: Justice Department, the federal government only got involved essentially after
6:24
Speaker 3: the New York Police Department and the Manhattan DIA had
6:27
Speaker 3: done the bulk of their investigation. And if your work
6:30
Speaker 3: all the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said that the Justice
6:35
Speaker 3: Department was going to seek the death penalty before the
6:40
Speaker 3: Southern District of New York prosecutors had secured a federal indictment.
6:46
Speaker 2: And Bondi was criticized for making that decision before she
6:50
Speaker 2: even knew the facts of the case. Why does each
6:53
Speaker 2: side want to go first? Is there a concern perhaps
6:57
Speaker 2: that the argument of double JAF will come up after
7:02
Speaker 2: the verdict in a first trial, and also perhaps that
7:05
Speaker 2: a second trial is less of a surprise for the defense,
7:09
Speaker 2: so they may have an advantage.
7:12
Speaker 3: It's not entirely clear why it's so important to each
7:15
Speaker 3: side to go first. I mean, I assume for publicity value,
7:20
Speaker 3: and you know, the evidence is fresher, the witnesses are fresher.
7:24
Speaker 3: As you suggest, the defense might have a better shot
7:27
Speaker 3: the second time around. But say, if Mangione is convicted
7:32
Speaker 3: and faces a life sentence, it's not entirely clear that
7:36
Speaker 3: he would want to go through that a second time.
7:39
Speaker 3: I mean, you could imagine that that might give leverage
7:43
Speaker 3: for a plea deal, averting a second trial.
7:47
Speaker 2: Key evidence in the case was found in Mangione's backpack
7:51
Speaker 2: that was searched at that McDonald's in Pennsylvania where he
7:56
Speaker 2: was arrested, and the defense has been fighting to keep
7:59
Speaker 2: that evidence out of the trial, arguing it was an
8:02
Speaker 2: illegal search, but the state judge, Judge Caro, is not
8:07
Speaker 2: going to issue a ruling on whether that critical evidence
8:11
Speaker 2: is in or out until May eighteenth, when he set
8:16
Speaker 2: the trial date for June eighth.
8:19
Speaker 3: The state court judge is going to rule in May,
8:22
Speaker 3: which is almost six months after he had a seven
8:26
Speaker 3: day hearing on the matter, whereas the federal judge had
8:31
Speaker 3: a single hearing with one witness on it and ruled
8:35
Speaker 3: promptly that the evidence collected in Luigi Mangione's backpack in
8:41
Speaker 3: a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania was admissible in the federal trial.
8:45
Speaker 3: So she ruled against the defense request to throw out
8:49
Speaker 3: that evidence, which if it's admitted, is, according to the
8:54
Speaker 3: New York authorities, very damning. It includes what they say
8:59
Speaker 3: was the gun that was used to murder Thompson. It
9:03
Speaker 3: includes a silencer, a gun magazine, and a diary that
9:08
Speaker 3: authorities say included a number of writings suggesting that Mancione
9:13
Speaker 3: was planning to murder Brian Thompson.
9:17
Speaker 2: This sort of illustrates the differences between practicing in state
9:21
Speaker 2: court and federal court. First Brand's founder Patrick James and
9:27
Speaker 2: his brother Edward pleaded not guilty to front charges stemming
9:31
Speaker 2: from the multi billion dollar collapse of their auto parts
9:35
Speaker 2: supply business. Prosecutors say that as a result of the
9:39
Speaker 2: defrauding of the company's lenders and financing partners, hundreds of
9:43
Speaker 2: millions of dollars flowed into the personal accounts of Patrick James.
9:48
Speaker 2: Federal prosecutors alleged the two former First Brands executives used
9:53
Speaker 2: fake and inflated invoices to persuade lenders to provide billions
9:57
Speaker 2: of dollars in financing to the company. Jay Clayton, the
10:01
Speaker 2: US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said
10:04
Speaker 2: the James brothers obtained billions for First Brands and millions
10:09
Speaker 2: for themselves by presenting their lenders with the impression of
10:12
Speaker 2: a successful, growing international business. He said it was a
10:17
Speaker 2: business run through fraud, fake documents, and false financials. The
10:22
Speaker 2: indictment follows separate civil lawsuits brought against the brothers by
10:26
Speaker 2: First Brand's bankruptcy advisors. The company filed for Chapter eleven
10:31
Speaker 2: bankruptcy in September of last year with just twelve million
10:35
Speaker 2: dollars in its corporate accounts and more than nine billion
10:38
Speaker 2: in liabilities. I've been talking to Bloomberg Legal reporter David
10:42
Speaker 2: Voriakis tell us about the charges.
10:45
Speaker 3: David Patrick James was the founder of First Brands, which
10:48
Speaker 3: is a big auto parts supply business that filed for
10:52
Speaker 3: bankruptcy last year, and the allegations are that he and
10:57
Speaker 3: his brother, who was a top executive, engaged in a
11:01
Speaker 3: massive fraud scheme regarding the financing of billions of dollars
11:08
Speaker 3: to the company. And they were indicted on charges including wirefraud,
11:14
Speaker 3: bank fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to
11:17
Speaker 3: commit money laundering.
11:19
Speaker 2: And explain how prosecutors say they committed these frauds.
11:25
Speaker 3: They are accused of essentially creating false invoices, using fake
11:32
Speaker 3: and inflated invoices to persuade lenders to give them financing
11:38
Speaker 3: that they needed to keep their business going. And you know,
11:42
Speaker 3: there's allegations of round trip financing, and a lot of
11:47
Speaker 3: this has already been aired and litigated in bankruptcy court.
11:53
Speaker 3: The prosecutors in the Southern District of New York say
11:56
Speaker 3: that it amounted to a criminal scheme. Of course, the
12:00
Speaker 3: brothers have pleaded not guilty and to their lawyers deny wrongdoing.
12:06
Speaker 3: The prosecutors have also secured the guilty plea and cooperation
12:12
Speaker 3: of a big executive, Peter Brumberg's who pleaded guilty under seal,
12:18
Speaker 3: and we'll be testifying at a trial that's scheduled to
12:23
Speaker 3: begin on July thirteenth.
12:25
Speaker 2: And prosecutors say that they have recordings.
12:28
Speaker 3: They have consensual recordings. They said that in a hearing,
12:32
Speaker 3: But the nature of those recordings and who's on them
12:35
Speaker 3: is unclear at the moment.
12:37
Speaker 2: So most of this was litigated or brought up in
12:41
Speaker 2: bankruptcy court. What did they find in bankruptcy court?
12:45
Speaker 3: There was a great deal of money that essentially went
12:49
Speaker 3: missing according to creditors. There's one lawsuit that accuses Patrick
12:54
Speaker 3: James of misappropriating more than seven hundred million between twenty
12:59
Speaker 3: eighteen in last September, and they say that that helped
13:04
Speaker 3: James and his family live their lavish lifestyle. James of
13:08
Speaker 3: course denies that. And essentially their defense is that they
13:13
Speaker 3: were that they were the victims of self interested, sophisticated
13:20
Speaker 3: institutions that placed what they said were patently absurd interest
13:26
Speaker 3: rates and fees on their borrowings.
13:28
Speaker 2: So they are accusing the lenders of engaging in predatory practices.
13:33
Speaker 2: Are they also claiming that the tariffs played a part
13:35
Speaker 2: in this.
13:36
Speaker 3: They do blame the tariffs a bit too. That was
13:40
Speaker 3: a factor that changed the business environment that helped lead
13:45
Speaker 3: to their bankruptcy.
13:47
Speaker 2: How much money do they have now.
13:49
Speaker 3: It's unclear, many millions of dollars now. Patrick James is
13:54
Speaker 3: free on a fifty million dollar bond and Edward James
13:58
Speaker 3: is free on a twenty five million dollar bond, and
14:01
Speaker 3: they had put up a portion of that in cash
14:03
Speaker 3: and also post properties to secure their bond. So this
14:08
Speaker 3: is a big part of the bankruptcy litigation is just
14:10
Speaker 3: how much money do they have and how much were
14:14
Speaker 3: they paid through the companies. It's a private company that
14:20
Speaker 3: Patrick James owns, and so the accounting is not quite
14:26
Speaker 3: as transparent as if it had been a public company.
14:29
Speaker 2: And the penalties are pretty stiff here if they're convicted.
14:34
Speaker 3: Yes, I believe it's life in prison for Patrick James.
14:40
Speaker 3: And you know, as with all of these financial frauds
14:43
Speaker 3: that involve wire fraud and bank fraud, it's potentially dozens
14:48
Speaker 3: of years in prison. Typically, why collar executives receive far
14:52
Speaker 3: less than that. But I mean, they're looking at very
14:54
Speaker 3: serious time if they're convicted in this case.
14:57
Speaker 2: So trial is set for July third. I imagine that's
15:02
Speaker 2: going to be a very complicated trial with lots of documents.
15:07
Speaker 2: Do you know how long the trial is expected to take.
15:11
Speaker 3: Well, it's a complex financial fraud, and I don't think
15:16
Speaker 3: the prosecutors have yet said how long they need to
15:19
Speaker 3: present their case, but I would imagine if it's anything
15:23
Speaker 3: like similar cases, it would be several weeks. And so
15:28
Speaker 3: far it appears that the most powerful evidence they have
15:32
Speaker 3: would be testimony from Peter Brumberg's, the cooperating First Brand's
15:37
Speaker 3: executive who pleaded guilty.
15:39
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis.
15:44
Speaker 2: In other legal news today, a landmark trials for the
15:49
Speaker 2: first time. Uber has been found liable for not preventing
15:53
Speaker 2: an alleged sexual assault of a passenger. The ride shared
15:57
Speaker 2: giant was hit with an eight and a half mills
16:00
Speaker 2: billion dollar verdict in a jury trial in Arizona, where
16:03
Speaker 2: a nineteen year old woman said she was raped by
16:06
Speaker 2: her driver. The company said it plans to appeal. The
16:10
Speaker 2: jury found that Uber was liable because the driver was
16:13
Speaker 2: acting as an apparent agent of the company, but the
16:17
Speaker 2: jury said Uber didn't act negligently or design a defective product,
16:22
Speaker 2: but the verdict does raise the risk of a costly
16:25
Speaker 2: settlement to resolve the more than three thousand similar civil
16:29
Speaker 2: lawsuits from passengers filed around the country. Uber did prevail
16:34
Speaker 2: in a similar case last year in California State Court.
16:38
Speaker 2: Joining me is Dana Whitfield, a partner at SPA in Bernstein.
16:42
Speaker 2: Uber for years has been fighting these sexual assault claims
16:47
Speaker 2: by arguing that the company can't be blamed that the
16:50
Speaker 2: drivers are independent contractors. Can you tell us a little
16:53
Speaker 2: bit about that?
16:55
Speaker 1: Sure?
16:56
Speaker 4: Well, that's always been their go to response, and it's
16:59
Speaker 4: true they are independent contractors. However, despite them being an
17:04
Speaker 4: independent contractor, they still are only able to access passengers
17:09
Speaker 4: through the software that was created by Uber. So since
17:13
Speaker 4: there is a level of respond to yet superior is
17:17
Speaker 4: the actual legal term where the fact that they both
17:21
Speaker 4: gain something, they become an agent of Uber.
17:26
Speaker 1: These drivers do the Uber is the.
17:29
Speaker 4: One that retains and collects the fare they pay these
17:33
Speaker 4: drivers based on the software that's used and the access.
17:38
Speaker 4: So despite there being an independent contactors situation, they also
17:43
Speaker 4: are able to say that you're an agent of Uber.
17:47
Speaker 4: So therefore Uber has a responsibility to their passengers, who
17:50
Speaker 4: they promote the software too, that they're going to be
17:54
Speaker 4: safe and they're going to implement safety measures to prevent
17:57
Speaker 4: the drivers from assaulting passengers.
18:00
Speaker 2: Tell us about how the jury came down here on
18:03
Speaker 2: the agency and on negligence.
18:07
Speaker 4: Well, the jurors clearly found that Uber not only failed
18:13
Speaker 4: to implement the safety measures, but they also failed to
18:16
Speaker 4: properly screen these drivers.
18:18
Speaker 1: So you had mentioned.
18:19
Speaker 4: Earlier that there have been, you know, numerous complaints, and
18:23
Speaker 4: they've known this for years. It actually goes back to
18:26
Speaker 4: these complaints coming as early as twenty fourteen. Also in
18:31
Speaker 4: December of twenty nineteen, Uber had released a safety report
18:35
Speaker 4: that showed that passengers had filed more than three thousand
18:37
Speaker 4: complaints of sexual assault back then.
18:41
Speaker 1: So they've had the.
18:42
Speaker 4: Knowledge for many years that they could have done more.
18:46
Speaker 4: They could have, as I mentioned, properly screened them, or
18:49
Speaker 4: at the bare minimum, they could have advised and alerted
18:53
Speaker 4: passengers of the risks of sexual assault by their drivers,
18:58
Speaker 4: because a passenger is not going to know that there's
19:01
Speaker 4: an independent contractor situation that these drivers are using their
19:04
Speaker 4: own vehicles, sometimes their own insurance as well. So therefore
19:09
Speaker 4: you're putting your faith into a billion dollar companies such
19:13
Speaker 4: as Uber, but really your safety at your at risk
19:17
Speaker 4: because there's just a driver who may only have one
19:20
Speaker 4: hundred thousand dollars policy limit, and you don't know where
19:23
Speaker 4: they previously worked or if they were just maybe even
19:25
Speaker 4: out of prison.
19:26
Speaker 1: You have no idea who is driving you.
19:28
Speaker 4: You only know that you're trusting Uber because you downloaded
19:30
Speaker 4: the app.
19:31
Speaker 2: But the jury didn't find that Uber was negligent.
19:35
Speaker 4: They found that there was clearly an issue with regard
19:38
Speaker 4: to the sexual assault, so they were liable because of
19:43
Speaker 4: the agency. That's where they found that there has to
19:46
Speaker 4: be summer. So the award of I believe it was
19:48
Speaker 4: eight point five million to this young lady was based
19:51
Speaker 4: on the fact that while the criminal action was that
19:54
Speaker 4: of the driver, it was Uber who failed to implement
19:58
Speaker 4: these safety precautions.
20:00
Speaker 2: Is Uber sort of taking comfort in the fact that
20:04
Speaker 2: it wasn't found guilty of negligence despite everything that you
20:08
Speaker 2: just mentioned.
20:09
Speaker 4: It's going to be what they're going to hang their
20:10
Speaker 4: hat on. But I think it's going to set a
20:12
Speaker 4: precedent that, based on the fact that there are thousands
20:15
Speaker 4: of other cases, that this is going to be something
20:18
Speaker 4: that other states will actually hold on to instead there
20:21
Speaker 4: are women who are finding that I've been assaulted by
20:25
Speaker 4: an Uber driver and despite there being this relationship where
20:29
Speaker 4: they're an independent contractor, Uber had knowledge and could have
20:32
Speaker 4: done something to protect me. So I think they're going
20:35
Speaker 4: to have an issue with regard to other states, looking
20:38
Speaker 4: to make sure that this decision now will set a
20:40
Speaker 4: president for other states as well. In federal court.
20:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, so federal court. So explain how this is a
20:45
Speaker 2: Bellweather trial.
20:47
Speaker 4: It's a Bellweather trial because of the magnitude, because there's
20:50
Speaker 4: so many cases. And they've done this also with the
20:54
Speaker 4: hair relaxer cases where there are instead of making it
20:57
Speaker 4: a class action suit, they put them all in under
21:00
Speaker 4: umbrella so that there is one measure to kind of
21:05
Speaker 4: corral everyone into one case. So that's why they use
21:08
Speaker 4: the belt.
21:08
Speaker 2: By the trial in the California state trial that ended
21:12
Speaker 2: with a different verdict, the jury found in that case
21:16
Speaker 2: that Uber wasn't liable. How do you account for the differences.
21:20
Speaker 1: It depends on the jurors.
21:21
Speaker 4: But I think that now we have the contradiction, and
21:24
Speaker 4: it also could have been that this case was in
21:26
Speaker 4: the case in California was many years before we're still
21:29
Speaker 4: dealing with the fact that what have they done to change?
21:32
Speaker 4: There's a level of notice now that comes into play.
21:35
Speaker 4: I believe with the Arizona decision is that if nothing
21:38
Speaker 4: has changed and you're aware that there have been thousands
21:42
Speaker 4: of complaints of sexual assaults, and you're still advertising and
21:45
Speaker 4: you're still promoting that you are safe when really that's
21:49
Speaker 4: not true. So that was the main issue is that
21:52
Speaker 4: I think that they are looking into are you looking
21:55
Speaker 4: at just the profits or are you looking at the
21:57
Speaker 4: safety of your passengers? And if there's a priority with
22:00
Speaker 4: regard to the profits, that's an issue.
22:02
Speaker 2: Where does it fit in that Uber has, you know,
22:05
Speaker 2: rolled out some safety measures. You know, you can share
22:09
Speaker 2: your ride location with friends, there's an option if you
22:12
Speaker 2: want a female driver. Where does that fit into these cases?
22:17
Speaker 4: I think that that's a start, of course, but I
22:20
Speaker 4: think with regard to the negligent supervision, that's something that
22:27
Speaker 4: no matter if you've shared your ride and you've requested
22:31
Speaker 4: a female driver, what if there's nobody else that's available.
22:35
Speaker 1: You still need to get that ride.
22:36
Speaker 4: You still need to get home, and there has to
22:39
Speaker 4: be a level of screening that has to take place
22:43
Speaker 4: before you're even putting someone in the position to actually
22:45
Speaker 4: be in a car with someone where where you could
22:47
Speaker 4: be victimized. So that's where I think the arizonajurs found
22:53
Speaker 4: there to be something that was lacking, that it wasn't
22:57
Speaker 4: enough that there should be something done with regard to
23:00
Speaker 4: screening before they're even allowed to have access to the
23:03
Speaker 4: app to be able to reach these passengers.
23:07
Speaker 2: So what do you think Uber's chances on a PLR.
23:12
Speaker 4: I mean, there's always, you know, a fifty to fifty chance.
23:15
Speaker 1: You really can't tell.
23:16
Speaker 4: I mean, because there's been conflicting decisions, I think that
23:20
Speaker 4: there's a chance, but it really doesn't matter. Is there's
23:23
Speaker 4: going to be a consensus with regard to could there
23:25
Speaker 4: have been something that was a misrepresentation of the law,
23:29
Speaker 4: and I don't believe that in this case that there was.
23:32
Speaker 2: So do you think that we'll start to see settlements
23:35
Speaker 2: in some of these cases.
23:37
Speaker 4: I think we were already seeing settlements in some of
23:39
Speaker 4: these cases, which is why so many have not made
23:41
Speaker 4: it to the federal court or even to state court.
23:44
Speaker 1: But I think that this decision.
23:46
Speaker 4: Will now put Uber on notice that if you're not
23:49
Speaker 4: going to change the approach and you're not going to
23:51
Speaker 4: change the advertising and the safety measures that we're going
23:54
Speaker 4: to be seeing a few more settlements until there's a
23:56
Speaker 4: decision or an appeal that states otherwise.
23:59
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for today. That's Dana Whitfield, managing partner
24:03
Speaker 2: of the Personal Injury Department at SPA and Bernstein, and
24:07
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
24:09
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
24:12
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
24:16
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
24:22
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
24:24
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
24:28
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg