Lyft sign/photographer: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg

Lawsuits alleging Lyft drivers sexually assaulted their passengers are likely to end up in San Francisco Superior Court after a judge granted coordination of the cases.

In a Jan. 17 order sent out to lawyers on Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman granted a request from plaintiffs attorneys to coordinate more than 20 lawsuits against Lyft Inc. under California's Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings.

"The court agrees with plaintiffs that this is not a case against the drivers; it is fundamentally a case against Lyft," he wrote. "The best way to address the common allegations and conduct of defendant Lyft is through coordination."

Plaintiffs firm Levin Simes Abrams, based in San Francisco, had petitioned to coordinate the Lyft cases in San Francisco Superior Court. Freeman heard arguments on Jan. 8.

"Each of these plaintiffs' experiences are horrifyingly unique, but what has not been unique is Lyft's appallingly inadequate response to their trauma," wrote Levin Simes partner Rachel Abrams in a statement. "Coordinating these cases will not only be more efficient for the court, it will clearly demonstrate Lyft's response to the sexual predator crisis among Lyft drivers has been appallingly inadequate no matter where their customers were assaulted."

Lyft, represented by Beth Stewart, a partner at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., had opposed the move, largely citing the myriad circumstances of each alleged assault. A Lyft representative said in a statement: "This ruling was on a preliminary, procedural issue on coordination of the cases only. Each of these women raises highly individualized claims, and what they describe is something no one should ever have to endure. We will continue working to make Lyft an even safer platform for our community."

The lawsuits, most filed in the past few months, alleged that Lyft failed to respond to incidences of sexual assault by its drivers against passengers, either by changing its screening practices or through its monitoring and surveillance procedures.

In opposing coordination, Lyft had cited the numerous differences about each of the 38 alleged incidences in the cases, which occurred in 19 states, including California, Florida, New Jersey and New York.

Freeman disagreed.

"Here, as counsel argues, all of these cases will turn on the same factual evidence as to whether Lyft adequately addressed the ongoing sexual assault problem posed by sexual predators while driving for Lyft," he wrote. "To the contrary, the predominating legal and factual issues will examine Lyft's liability for allegedly failing to institute a system to have prevented the assaults in these cases and potential future assaults."

In a footnote, Freeman mentioned that plaintiffs lawyers expect there will be more than 100 cases against Lyft. The cases, he wrote, would involve "a large number of witnesses" and thousands of documents, emails and other discovery materials.

Freeman also cited the "difficult or novel legal issues" in the cases, such as whether Lyft drivers are independent contractors or employees, and the "technological feasibility of implementing additional safety features, causation, and challenges to the basis for vicarious liability for the intentional torts of Lyft drivers."

He recommended San Francisco Superior Court because San Francisco is home to both Lyft and Levin Simes. "Further," he wrote, "San Francisco Superior Court uses e-filing, which could potentially save the parties significant sums."

In a footnote, however, he acknowledged "there may be challenges to the San Francisco Superior Court handling the volume of cases which may be filed," and recommended Los Angeles Superior Court as an alternative.