Warnings of "likely" perjury and allegations that evidence is being withheld have sparked since the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge presiding over a lawsuit against the ride-sharing giant Uber is reconsidering her decision to reject its effort to force the case into arbitration.

Judge Abbe Fletman had entered an order in Kemenosh v. Uber denying the ride-share company's petition seeking to compel arbitration but vacated that order last month.

Over the past few weeks the parties have been sparring about whether Fletman should reverse her ruling or hold an evidentiary hearing into the matter.

The crux of the dispute comes down to whether plaintiff Jillian Kemenosh received and agreed to notifications from Uber that allegedly informed her she would have to arbitrate personal injury claims against the company. Kemenosh has contended that she never received the notices, or accessed or agreed to the terms, but Uber has contended that Kemenosh has offered conflicting statements about the issue, and therefore the case must go to arbitration.

"Given the plaintiff's false affidavit should be set aside, the only evidence before the court is that the November 2016 email was sent to plaintiff's correct email, that Uber received no bounce back, and she therefore must have received it, even if she ultimately chose not to open and/or read it," Uber said in a brief filed Thursday by Goldberg Segalla's Madeline Baio. "Given that there is no material factual dispute that plaintiff received the November 2016 email, Uber has met its burden to prove 'receipt' per this court's initial opinion. The matter must accordingly be compelled to arbitration."

Counsel for Kemenosh, Joseph Messa of Messa & Associates, said Friday that Uber's arguments were misleading.

"There's really no contradiction there whatsoever. What you have is testimony where Ms. Baio asked the same question, five, six, seven times in five, six, seven different ways. Although the answers might be different, they had the same meaning," Messa said. "Can you say there are words that are different [in the two documents]? Yes. Is the meaning the same? Absolutely."

The arbitration issue appeared to be settled Jan. 3, when Fletman issued an opinion and order finding that Kemenosh did not enter into a valid agreement to arbitrate. According to Fletman's opinion, Kemenosh registered to use the Uber app on her phone in October 2013, and regularly used it until she was involved in a crash in Philadelphia in March 2018 while a passenger.

Uber argued that, upon registering, Kemenosh would have reached a screen that told her she was agreeing to the terms and conditions by creating an Uber account, and that the screen would have included a hyperlink to the company's arbitration policy. In 2016, Uber allegedly also sent Kemenosh another email saying the company had updated its terms and conditions, which provided a hyperlink on the word "here." Kemenosh, however, contended that, while she did register for the app, she did not see the hyperlink, or click on the terms and conditions, and therefore never reviewed them.

Ultimately, Fletman determined that Uber failed to prove Kemenosh received the 2016 update email, and that the screens presented to Kemenosh in 2013 did not properly communicate and offer to arbitrate.

"In sum, Uber has proven only that there was a meeting of the minds on an agreement for Ms. Kemenosh to pay money in exchange for transportation," Fletman said. "Uber failed to prove that the October 2013 registration process resulted in a meeting of the minds on an agreement to arbitrate."

At the end of January, Uber filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Fletman misapplied contract law, and accusing Kemenosh of having "likely committed perjury" when she filed her affidavit. Specifically, the company contended that Kemenosh's affidavit denying she opened the 2016 email was contradicted by subsequent testimony in which she allegedly said she could not remember whether she received the email or not.

"Because plaintiff's affidavit was at minimum false, and at worst perjured, it is respectfully submitted that this honorable court should grant defendants' pending motion to strike plaintiff's affidavit which is being filed simultaneously herewith," the company said in its motion for reconsideration.

The same day that motion was filed, Uber also filed a motion to strike Kemenosh's affidavit.

On Feb. 10, Fletman granted the reconsideration motion, and vacated her prior order.

In her response, filed by Messa and attorney Megan M. Kwak, Kemenosh said Uber "manufactured a purported contradiction," and cited lengths of deposition testimony to make the argument that her deposition testimony was consistent with the affidavit.

Kemenosh further said that Uber withheld information from the court, and, in support of that argument, cited a response in another case against Uber that Messa & Associates is handling. In that case, the company responded to a similar arbitration dispute by presenting a log indicating that the 2016 email had been opened. Kemenosh contended that not having a similar confirmation for the email she received indicated that Uber knew she never opened the email.

"The fact that the Uber defendants withheld this information from the court in this matter, namely that the Uber defendants knew Ms. Kemenosh never 'opened' the November 2016 email, is a flagrant disregard of the rules governing representations made to the court, as well as an attorney's duty of candor," the memo said.

In its response, filed Thursday, Uber denied that it was withholding any information, and argued that it is not able to determine whether an email was opened in all instances. The company urged the court to focus on whether the email was actually received.

"This is similar to regular mail—while senders can verify whether a piece of mail was sent, they cannot verify that the recipient actually opened and read the mail," Uber said.

Baio did not return a call seeking comment.