Uber Concealed Firearm Class Action Lawsuit Tossed for No Injury

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal judge abruptly tossed a class action lawsuit alleging Uber’s no-firearms policy violates drivers’ rights finding that the plaintiff failed to show how he had been injured by the policy.

Lead plaintiff Jose Mejia alleged in his class action lawsuit that the ride share company violated his and other Uber drivers’ rights under Florida law by banning guns while working for the company.

The plaintiff argued that his concealed carry permit allowed him to carry a firearm and the company policy should not supersede that “right.”

According to the Uber class action lawsuit, Uber violated his and other Florida Uber-driver’s rights under a state law entitled “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.”

Uber moved to dismiss the class action lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff could not show how he had been injured by not being able to carry a gun while driving. U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom agreed with the ride share company, tossing the Uber class action lawsuit shortly after a gunman killed 17 high school students in the state on Valentine’s Day.

“These allegations, without more, do not sufficiently plead an injury in fact, that is, the invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent,’ required by [the law],” stated the judge’s order.

The judge said that without an injury, the court would be put in the position of making “an impermissible exercise in purely advisory decision-making” – something that should be left to the legislature.

“The crux of Plaintiff’s claim is that the Policy conflicts with Florida [law] even though the plain language of the Policy carves out the conflict Plaintiff complains of and Uber has not otherwise attempted to enforce the Policy against Mejia,” explained the judge in the order. “Instead Plaintiff requests this Court to extrapolate how, if at all, Uber might enforce the Policy against Plaintiff and the putative class. Plaintiff speculates that Uber may prohibit him from keeping his firearm in his vehicle while using the Uber application, allegedly in contravention of Florida law, but this hypothesis does not support a finding of the actual or imminent injury that our cases require and defies the plain language of the policy.”

In her order tossing the Uber class action lawsuit, Judge Bloom pointed out that the plaintiff had only alleged that he wanted to carry his gun while shuttling passengers as an Uber driver, but had not tried to do so. Uber hasn’t had to enforce its policy against the plaintiff, noted the judge, leaving the court without any information as to how the policy would be enforced and if any injury to the driver would result.

“This hypothesis does not ‘support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require’ and defies the plain language of the policy,” pointed out the judge.

Uber had also asked the judge to compel the Uber class action lawsuit to arbitration; however, the judge threw that case out without getting to Uber’s arguments.

“Because Plaintiff lacks standing, the Court refrains from further consideration of the Motion and this action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” concluded the memorandum supporting the order to dismiss.

Mejia is represented by attorneys Jared H. Beck, Elizabeth Lee Beck and Beverly Virues of Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, and by Antonio G. Hernandez of Antonio G. Hernandez PA.

The Uber Concealed Firearm Class Action Lawsuit is Mejia v.Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-61617, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.