Uber Technologies Inc. is asking a federal judge to remove plaintiffs’ attorney David Grimes from a sweeping multidistrict litigation (MDL) over passenger sexual assault claims, accusing him of unleashing a pattern of “beyond-the-pale personal attacks” on opposing counsel during case proceedings, including alleged name-calling, profanity and sexually charged remarks that Uber says crossed the line from advocacy into misconduct.
Uber filed a motion on March 11 asking U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to bar Grimes from any further participation in a sexual assault trial that began April 13, accusing him of repeated misconduct that it says violates professional standards of “honesty, care, and decorum required for the fair and efficient administration of justice.”
In its filing, Uber alleges Grimes, a personal injury attorney with the San Francisco-based Levin Simes LLP, directed repeated personal insults at defense counsel, including calling attorneys “cocksuckers,” “pedophiles” and “scumbags,” and making sexually explicit and inappropriate remarks during litigation conferences.
Uber’s motion focuses on a two-hour March 9, 2026 Zoom meet-and-confer, in which it alleges Grimes escalated to sustained personal attacks against opposing counsel.
According to the filing, Grimes first allegedly asked if defense counsel Chris Cotton, of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, was a pedophile, and then reiterated the accusation by stating that Cotton sounded like a pedophile, before escalating further by comparing him to a rapist.
The motion continues that Grimes then referred to Cotton as “a cock-sucker,” followed by additional insults in which he called him a “dirt bag” and a “scum bag.”
Beyond those remarks, Uber alleges the conduct became increasingly personal and inappropriate, asserting that Grimes asked whether Cotton and Ricky Brown, also of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, were engaged in sexual conduct during the meet and confer and, at one point, directed a question to Brown asking, “Is Chris [Cotton] touching you right now?”
The filing further states that Grimes made inappropriate references to Cotton’s daughter and that, throughout the call, “Mr. Grimes shouted his comments on several occasions, including shouting over [Cotton] as he spoke.”
Uber further alleges that the exchange escalated to the point where a partner at Grimes’ firm intervened during the call and suggested he “take a break,” after which the session ended.
The motion also points to an earlier Feb. 27, 2025 meet-and-confer as evidence of a broader pattern of conduct, alleging that Grimes asked, “Are you guys stupid?” and followed with, “I don’t give a shit Amy,” a comment directed at Shook, Hardy & Bacon partner, Amy Alexander.
It further claims he told opposing counsel, “You guys have your heads up your asses,” described them as “just plain stupid,” and concluded, “You guys are saying some of the stupidest craziest shit I’ve ever heard in my life.”
Uber argues these incidents show a pattern of behavior rather than isolated disputes.
Grimes’ employer, Levin Simes LLP, acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations in a March 20, 2026 letter to the court.
“We acknowledge that this is a difficult situation that must be addressed effectively,” Levin Simes said in the letter.
Levin Simes LLP said it was working on addressing the issue.
“Professionally, we are consulting with experts outside of the firm for the purpose of obtaining input as to the optimal path forward,” Levin Simes said in the letter. “On another level, we are working to provide resources to Mr. Grimes which might be helpful to him, while taking the appropriate remedial and prophylactic measures to ensure that any such conduct is not repeated.”
In a March 25 opposition filing, Levin Simes did not dispute that corrective action was necessary, but argued for a narrower remedy that would restrict Grimes from appearing in court or interacting with opposing counsel while allowing him to continue working on behalf of more than 1,200 clients without appearing in front of defense counsel.
Levin Simes also stated it had already taken steps internally.
“Following the conduct cited in Uber’s motion, our firm addressed the matter directly with Mr. Grimes, and with Uber,” Levin Simes wrote in its motion.
Uber, however, called that proposal “grossly inadequate,” arguing in its April 1 reply that Grimes’ conduct was part of a broader pattern of personal attacks and warranted complete removal from the MDL.
Uber’s motion seeks to bar Grimes from “any further participation” in the case, including appearances in court, depositions, filings or client interactions. As of the latest filings, the court has not ruled on the motion. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for May 8, 2026.
The federal bellwether trial, which began April 13, involves allegations that a driver contracted through Uber briefly touched a passenger’s leg during a 2019 ride in North Carolina.
That case has been narrowed after the plaintiff withdrew key expert testimony and dropped several claims, leaving only whether Uber may be held liable under a “common carrier” duty, which would implicate Uber for the behavior of contract drivers paid through the company.
For its part, Uber has denied liability for such actions, arguing it is not a common carrier and therefore not responsible for independent contractor drivers.
