Uber headquarters, 1455 Market St., San Francisco. (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)

An Argentinian lawyer is saddled with more than $28,000 in sanctions after a federal judge threw out his complaint against Uber Technologies Inc. for knowingly submitting an “inaccurate and misleading” lawsuit.  

The plaintiff, Michael Rattagan, claimed that the ride-hailing company effectively used him as a legal scapegoat for local regulatory backlash ahead of its botched Buenos Aires launch. After submitting his lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Uber entities he listed, including Uber Technologies Inc., Uber International BV and Uber International Holdings BV, alerted him to “a fatal jurisdictional defect,” according to Judge Edward Chen’s order granting Uber’s motion for sanctions and dismissing Rattagan’s complaint.

Uber reportedly notified Rattagan that the court’s diversity jurisdiction does not cover a foreign plaintiff suing a foreign defendant, such as Amsterdam-based Uber International BV and Uber International Holdings BV. Uber alleges these international arms of the company enlisted Rattagan’s help in establishing a corporate presence in Argentina, not Uber Technologies, according to Chen’s order. In response, Rattagan amended his complaint to make San Francisco-based Uber Technologies the sole defendant.  

“While Mr. Rattagan could have advanced a theory that Uber Technologies was somehow legally responsible based on its indirect control over Uber International entities with whom Mr. Rattagan contracted (whether via an alter ego or other theory), Mr. Rattagan deleted that allegation and worded the FAC so as to imply a direct relationship with Uber Technologies,” Chen wrote. “As a result, Uber Technologies has met its burden of showing that Rattagan’s complaint is … factually baseless from an objective perspective.”

Uber Technologies, represented by Covington & Burling’s Clara Shin, Jeffrey Davidson, Amy Heath and Lindsey Barnhart, requested $86,415 in its motions for sanctions and dismissal. However, the court calculated the award based on fees related to the sanctions briefing only, amounting to $28,731.50.

Covington declined to comment on the case, and Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rattagan, of Rattagan Macchiavelo Arocena in Buenos Aires, brought the suit against Uber earlier this year over fallout from the company’s 2016 launch in the city. The lawyer sued the company for breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence after he was swept up in police investigations and tax evasion charges for Uber’s violation of local laws. 

Emails from Rattagan clarify that he was hired by Uber’s foreign divisions, according to Chen.

“The bottom line is that Rattagan has produced no evidence to substantiate his allegations of a direct ‘attorney/client and contractual relationship’ with Uber Technologies,” the judge wrote. “Instead, the evidence introduced by Uber Technologies shows that the direct legal relationship that existed was between the Uber International Entities and Rattagan, and further that Rattagan was fully aware of this fact, as demonstrated by his communications and billing invoices.”

Chen gave Rattagan the chance to amend, “because the court cannot rule out the possibility that one or more legal claims may be properly stated against Uber Technologies, even if Uber did not have a formal contractual relationship with Mr. Rattagan.”

Rattagan’s attorney Stephen Rosenfeld of McDonald Hopkins in Chicago does plan to relitigate the claim. 

“We are disappointed with Judge Chen’s ruling and believe it to be in error,” Rosenfeld said. “While we are considering our options with respect to the sanctions, we are undeterred in our efforts to right the terrible wrong that Uber occasioned on our client and intend to replead.” 

Rattagan is also represented by Christopher Dean of McDonald Hopkins and Shartsis Friese’s Frank Cialone and Miles Winder in San Francisco.