Court Denies Simon & Simon’s Partial Summary Judgment in Uber Fraud Lawsuit

The court denied Simon & Simon’s motion for partial summary judgment in Uber’s fraud lawsuit.

On October 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Simon & Simon P.C. and its owner, Marc Simon, a motion for partial summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging the firm facilitated fraudulent personal injury claims related to Uber Technologies Inc.

The claims focus on accusations that Simon & Simon directed clients toward specific medical providers who created inflated or fabricated records to increase injury claim payouts. The case was initially filed by Uber on September 18, 2025, under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a statute typically used to combat organized fraud and corruption.

Presiding Judge Mark A. Kearney ruled that Uber maintains standing to pursue the lawsuit even though an insurer is paying for the attorney fees and settlements involved. This is significant because standing refers to a party’s legal right to bring a case. The judge emphasized that an insured corporation does not lose this right merely because insurance covers costs. His memorandum opinion dated August 27, 2026 noted, "We appreciate experienced personal injury lawyers and doctors do not like reading their names in federal court complaints alleging their specific roles in alleged racketeering conduct."

Separately, Simon & Simon filed counterclaims accusing Uber and FedEx of abuse of process—a legal claim alleging misuse of judicial procedures—and claims of sham litigation and extortion. These claims were dismissed for lack of factual support, reinforcing the court’s skepticism of Simon & Simon’s allegations against its adversaries.

This case reveals the heightened scrutiny courts give to RICO allegations against law firms suspected of orchestrating fraudulent litigation schemes. It also illustrates the complex interactions between law firms, corporate clients, and insurers in managing the legal fallout of alleged fraud. For legal professionals, the ruling signals increased risks related to firm conduct, client oversight, and reputational exposure in high-stakes litigation.

Yes, but: While the court denied the law firm’s partial summary judgment, the case continues, and no final determination of liability has yet been made.

What's next: Further proceedings, including discovery and potential trial dates, are expected as the litigation advances in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.