Michael Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 19 F.4th 1188

Plaintiff Michael Rattagan, an Argentine attorney, was retained by two Uber-owned Dutch entities as their legal representative for launching Uber in Argentina; Uber’s U.S. headquarters later handled communications about the launch.
Uber allegedly launched in April 2016 before the Argentine subsidiary was properly formed/registered and concealed the launch plans from Rattagan despite exposing him to potential personal liability.
Shortly after launch, law enforcement raided Rattagan’s office and colleagues’ homes, he faced public protests and media coverage, and was later charged with aggravated tax evasion; he alleges reputational and economic harm.
Rattagan sued for negligence, breach of the implied covenant, fraudulent concealment, and aiding and abetting; the district court found the negligence and covenant claims time-barred and held the fraudulent concealment claims barred by California’s economic loss rule, dismissing the complaint.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit concluded Rattagan waived a special-relationship theory and failed to plausibly allege a non-contractual relationship with Uber, leaving a single dispositive question: whether fraudulent concealment is exempt from California’s economic loss rule.
Because California’s high court has not resolved that question and lower courts are divided, the Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court and stayed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraudulent concealment claims are exempt from California’s economic loss rule	Fraudulent concealment is an independent tort and thus falls within Robinson’s fraud exception to the economic loss rule	Economic loss rule bars purely economic tort claims arising from contractual relationships; Robinson was limited to affirmative misrepresentations and should not be extended	Question certified to the California Supreme Court for definitive resolution (no decision on the merits)
Whether a special-relationship exception shields Rattagan’s tort claims	Rattagan argued a special-relationship exception applied	Uber disputed the existence of such a special relationship	Ninth Circuit found Rattagan waived this argument on appeal
Whether Rattagan plausibly alleged a non-contractual relationship with Uber	Rattagan contended his relationship with Uber was non-contractual and tort-based	Uber argued the relationship was contractual and economic-loss principles apply	Court held Rattagan failed to plausibly allege a non-contractual relationship
Whether certification to the California Supreme Court was appropriate	Rattagan urged resolution by California courts	Uber opposed certification	Ninth Circuit exercised its discretion and certified the controlling state-law question to the California Supreme Court and administratively stayed the appeal

Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 102 P.3d 268 (Cal. 2004) (California Supreme Court exempts fraud based on affirmative misrepresentations from economic loss rule)
Erlich v. Menezes, 981 P.2d 978 (Cal. 1999) (contract breaches typically remedied in contract law unless independent tort duty exists)
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law)
In re County of Orange, 784 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) (discusses Erie principles and state-law application in federal court)
City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2014) (economic loss rule is substantive for Erie purposes)