IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
§
CARMA TECHNOLOGY, CORP., and
§
CARMA TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,
§
Plaintiffs,
§
v.
§
CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00029-JRG-RSP
§
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER
§
FREIGHT HOLDING CORP., and UBER
§
FREIGHT US LLC,
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 21. After Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint that, among other things, added Defendants Uber Freight Holding Corporation and Uber Freight US LLC, Dkt. No. 58, all Defendants supplemented the Motion with additional briefing, Dkt. No. 62-1.
Magistrate Judge Payne recommended the Court grant the Motion in part. See R. & R, Dkt. No. 305. Specifically, Judge Payne recommended Uber Freight Holding Corporation and Uber Technologies, Inc., be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for improper venue, but that the Motion otherwise be denied. Id. at 14.
Plaintiffs have since filed Objections (Dkt. No. 340), with Defendants filing a Response (Dkt. No. 345) to those Objections. After conducting a de novo review of the Motion and related briefing, the Report and Recommendation, Carma’s Objections, and Defendants’ Response, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided in the Report and Recommendation and concludes the Objections fail to show the Report and Recommendation was clearly erroneous.
2Ca.se 2:25-cv-00029-JRG-RSP Document 358 Filed 09/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Carma’s Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS IN PART the Motion (Dkt. No. 21), and DISMISSES Uber Freight Holding Corporation and Uber Technologies, Inc., from this proceeding. The Motion is otherwise DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of September, 2026.