Judge Mark Kearney refused to dismiss Uber's racketeering case against the plaintiffs' firm — converting an accusation into an investigation with subpoena power, and turning the chair toward the lawyers who usually ask the questions.
On May 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney sat in Philadelphia and refused to throw out Uber's racketeering case against the plaintiffs' firm Simon & Simon, P.C., writing that "Uber's pleaded facts viewed in their totality support a reasonable inference the lawyers and doctors acted with fraudulent intent, or at minimum reckless disregard for the truth, in using the mails and interstate wires to transmit false or misleading medical documents in furtherance of the alleged scheme." That sentence does more than keep a complaint alive. It hands Uber a key to the firm's filing cabinets.
The motion to dismiss was the gate. Marc Simon's firm tried to close it. Judge Kearney left it open. What matters now is not the procedural box checked on a Wednesday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. What matters is what walks through that gate next. Discovery.
Most carrier-offense RICO suits never get here. They die at the pleading stage because a defendant firm argues the complaint is a dressed-up dispute over billing, not a fraud scheme, and judges agree. Kearney did not agree. He found Uber pleaded enough to make the inference of fraudulent intent reasonable. Reasonable inference is the threshold. Cross it, and the defendant must answer questions under oath about how it ran its business.
Think about what a prominent personal-injury firm does not want a corporate adversary to see. The intake script. The rule that decides which caller becomes a case and which gets turned away. The list of doctors the firm sends clients to, and how that list got built. The fee arrangements, if any, that run between the lawyers and the clinics. The internal email where someone flags a record that does not add up and asks what to do about it. None of that is public. All of it is now potentially discoverable.
Uber's theory, as Kearney summarized it, is that lawyers and doctors moved "false or misleading medical documents" through the mail and wires to inflate claims. To prove that theory, Uber does not need a confession. It needs the paper trail. Discovery is the mechanism that produces the paper trail. Document requests reach the firm's case-management system. Interrogatories force the firm to name names. Depositions put the partners in a chair across from Uber's lawyers, with a court reporter taking down every pause.
The gatekeeping question is the live wire. In the parallel FedEx racketeering complaint filed in the Southern District of New York against a different firm, the carrier alleged a named attorney "occupied a gatekeeping position, specifically, selecting which claims would be advanced, which providers would be used, and when and where litigation would be initiated, thereby directing the flow of fraudulent claims through such enterprise." That is the architecture carriers are now hunting for. Not a single bad document. A system. A pattern of selection that turns ordinary referrals into a RICO enterprise. Discovery is where you find out whether the system exists or whether the carrier guessed wrong.
Join 1,847 litigation leaders who get weekly intelligence on strategy, technology, and the data that matters.
For Simon & Simon, the deposition is the part that bites. A document production is a fight over scope and privilege, run by lawyers, conducted on paper. A deposition is a person answering live. Uber's counsel will ask how the doctor list was assembled. They will ask who reviewed the medical records before they went out. They will ask whether anyone at the firm ever questioned a diagnosis and sent the claim anyway. Every answer is locked in. Every "I don't recall" is on the record. The firm's partners spend their careers asking those questions of defendants. Now the chair turns.
Privilege will be the next battlefield, and it is not the shield it looks like. Attorney-client privilege protects legal advice. It does not protect the mechanics of a business, and it does not protect communications made in furtherance of a fraud. That second piece is the crime-fraud exception, and it is exactly the kind of fight Kearney's "reasonable inference" finding sets up. Uber will argue that because the judge already found a plausible inference of fraudulent intent, the firm cannot bury the operative documents behind privilege. The firm will argue every withheld page is protected work product. Whoever wins that argument wins the case, because the documents at the center of it are the documents that show whether the scheme was real.
The asymmetry of exposure is the strategic engine here. Uber is a defendant in thousands of injury suits and has institutional patience and a litigation budget that does not blink. Simon & Simon runs on case volume and reputation. Discovery against a plaintiffs' firm is not just expensive. It is exposing. The same files Uber wants in this case describe how the firm handles every other case. A deposition transcript does not stay in one matter. It becomes a roadmap other defendants can follow. The firm now litigates under the knowledge that everything it produces can be read by the next carrier with a RICO theory and a filing fee.
The damages number reads small. Uber pleaded losses of "more than $50,000," the federal-court floor, with treble damages and the total scheme value left unquantified. Do not read the figure as the stakes. RICO trebles. And the real exposure is not the dollar amount in the complaint. It is the precedent and the disclosure. A plaintiffs' firm that has its intake system, its doctor relationships, and its record-review practices pulled into the open under oath has lost something money does not measure, whether or not Uber ever collects a judgment.
This is why the discovery phase, not the dismissal ruling, is the story. The headline that the suit "survived" is a procedural fact. The consequence is operational. Kearney's order converts an accusation into an investigation with subpoena power behind it. Uber now gets to ask the questions and compel the answers. The firm now has to choose, document by document, what to fight over and what to hand across.
Watch three things as the case moves. First, the protective order. How tightly the parties wall off what Uber learns will tell you how sensitive the firm believes its files are. Second, the privilege log. Its length and its fights signal where the firm thinks the danger sits. Third, the first deposition notice. The name on it reveals who Uber thinks built the machine.
Marc Simon's firm wanted this case gone at the gate. The gate held. The hard part was supposed to be surviving the motion. It was not. The hard part starts now.
The Executive Briefing takes 2 minutes and shows you exactly where the gaps are.
Take the Executive Briefing →Join 1,847 litigation leaders who get weekly intelligence on strategy, technology, and the data that matters.