Reported / Citable
Background
Uber Technologies, Inc. moved to dismiss Carma Technology, Corp. and Carma Technology, Ltd.’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). Carma later filed a first amended complaint that added Uber Freight Holding Corporation and Uber Freight US LLC as defendants, after which all defendants supplemented the dismissal motion with additional briefing.
Magistrate Judge Payne recommended granting the motion in part. The report and recommendation proposed dismissing Uber Technologies and Uber Freight Holding under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for improper venue while otherwise denying the motion. Carma objected, and the defendants responded.
The Court’s Holding
After conducting a de novo review of the motion and related briefing, the report and recommendation, Carma’s objections, and the defendants’ response, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap agreed with the report’s reasoning. The court concluded that Carma’s objections did not show the report and recommendation was clearly erroneous.
The court overruled Carma’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and granted the dismissal motion in part. It dismissed Uber Technologies and Uber Freight Holding from the proceeding for improper venue and denied the motion in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- Uber Technologies and Uber Freight Holding were dismissed from the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for improper venue.
- Uber Freight US LLC was not dismissed by this order.
- The court adopted Magistrate Judge Payne’s report and recommendation and otherwise denied the defendants’ dismissal motion.
Why It Matters
The order narrows the defendant group by removing Uber Technologies and Uber Freight Holding on venue grounds while leaving the proceeding intact as to Uber Freight US LLC. Because the supplied order adopts the magistrate judge’s report without reproducing its underlying analysis, it does not independently explain the factual or legal basis for the venue determination.