Plaintiffs' attorney in Uber MDL sidelined after vulgar remarks to opposing counsel

Plaintiffs' firm Levin Simes agreed to remove one of its attorneys, David M. Grimes, from the multidistrict litigation over allegations Uber's liable when its drivers commit sexual assault, after the parties say he made vulgar comments to opposing counsel.

In a motion filed March 11, Uber said Grimes made repeated disparaging comments to opposing counsel -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP's Christopher V. Cotton -- during a meet-and-confer earlier that week.

According to the motion, Grimes called Cotton a "pedophile," "rapist," "cock sucker," "dirt bag," and "idiot" at the meeting. Uber also says Grimes suggested Cotton was touching his co-counsel inappropriately during the meeting.

"Is Chris touching you right now?" Grimes allegedly asked a Shook, Hardy & Bacon associate who had joined Cotton on the call, according to a letter submitted by Cotton to the court. In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, 3:23-md-03084 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 4, 2023).  

In an email to Cotton after the incident, Grimes said that he was "not sure your colleague's account is perfectly accurate, and some of the more choice items are missing what I would regard as key context," but agreed that his conduct was inappropriate and offered an apology, according to a declaration from Cotton.

The company moved to have Grimes removed from the case. Levin Simes, a San Francisco firm that represents several plaintiffs in the MDL, didn't dispute Uber's account in its response to the motion but said it would address the issue directly with Grimes. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer was set to hear the motion Thursday, but the parties filed a joint stipulation Wednesday evening, which the judge approved that morning.

The parties agreed that Grimes wouldn't appear before the court in person or teleconference, wouldn't participate in depositions or work on briefs, and would avoid interacting with opposing counsel altogether. Uber reserved the right to seek additional relief in the event the conduct continues.

In the stipulation, Levin Simes said it "acknowledges Mr. Grimes' outrageous, inappropriate conduct and remarks," and that "Mr. Grimes' conduct, as described in Uber's motion, occurred and was improper."

According to Cotton's declaration, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss fraudulent receipts for Uber rides submitted by some of the firm's clients. The meeting lasted two hours before Levin Simes partner Laurel L. Simes walked into Grimes' office and suggested they take a break.

Grimes sent an email apologizing and offering not to participate in future meet-and-confers, according to Cotton's declaration.

Uber filed its motion two days later. In its response to the motion, Levin Simes argued that barring Grimes from the case entirely would place a burden on their clients, many of whom have been represented by Mr. Grimes for several years and have relied on his involvement in their cases."

Following Uber's motion, Simes wrote a letter to Breyer saying the firm would work with Grimes to prevent a similar incident from happening again. She said she couldn't disclose the underlying causes of Grimes' actions.

"Since Mr. Grimes is an employee, we are not at liberty to discuss the specifics of any of the personal issues that may underlie his conduct," Simes wrote. "Nor do we seek to excuse the conduct in question. Our goal is to address what happened in a constructive manner, which takes into consideration the interests of all concerned."

Uber says the March meeting was the second time Grimes used choice words when talking to its attorneys. In a February 2025 meeting, Uber says Grimes used expletives and repeatedly called its counsel "stupid." The defendants didn't seek to discipline Grimes following that meeting.