Uber’s RICO Lawsuit Against Jacob Emrani: Claims and Dismissal Fight

Uber’s RICO lawsuit against Jacob Emrani, filed July 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accuses the Los Angeles personal injury attorney, a second law firm, and a group of affiliated medical providers of running a coordinated scheme to inflate rideshare injury claims and extract settlements from Uber’s state-mandated insurance policies.¹ The case, numbered 2:25-cv-06612, is brought under the federal civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962.²

What Uber Says the Scheme Looked Like

The complaint calls it a “phantom damages” scheme. According to Uber, the attorney defendants identified clients from minor rideshare accidents and steered them away from their own doctors and insurance to a handpicked network of medical providers.³ Those providers then allegedly performed unnecessary procedures and produced bills Uber says ran up to ten times industry norms.⁴

The inflated bills, according to the complaint, were then used as leverage against Uber’s $1 million rideshare insurance policies. Uber contends the defendants were “highly incentivized to figure out how do they get to the highest number possible under a million dollars.”³

A key piece of Uber’s theory involves alleged secret side agreements. The complaint says the law firms and providers maintained arrangements that let providers quietly reduce billed amounts when settlements came in lower than expected. Uber argues those agreements prove the original bills were artificial, because the providers were willing to accept far less than the invoice face value.⁴

Who Is Named

The defendants are Jacob Emrani and the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani; Igor Fradkin and the Downtown LA Law Group; orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Greg Khounganian and his practice GSK Spine; and Radiance Surgery Center, which also operates as Sherman Oaks Surgery Center.³

Uber’s complaint devotes particular attention to Khounganian. It alleges he diagnosed patients with exaggerated or nonexistent injuries, tied those injuries to minor accidents, and performed medically unnecessary surgeries. An independent audit cited in the complaint found his charges roughly ten times the accepted value for the procedures performed.⁵ In one cited example, Radiance Surgery Center prepared five bills for a single claimant totaling more than $200,000 for procedures performed between 2020 and 2021. In another, the center billed over $100,000 for surgery on a claimant who reportedly reported no pain in follow-up visits.⁶ Uber alleges Khounganian’s conduct has “fraudulently tainted at least nine cases” against Uber and dozens more against other defendants.

What Uber Is Asking For

Uber seeks restitution, treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. Civil RICO allows a successful plaintiff to recover three times its actual damages.²

How the Defendants Are Responding

The defendants have denied the allegations and pushed to have the case thrown out. The Downtown LA Law Group called Uber’s claims “baseless” and said the suit is an attempt to “suppress legitimate injury claims.” A representative for Khounganian described the litigation as an “orchestrated political ‘hit piece’ disguised as litigation” and said his care rests on “medical necessity, not legal strategy.”³ Khounganian himself called the suit “completely baseless and unwarranted” and accused Uber of trying to “bully doctors and their patients.”⁷

Defense counsel has moved to dismiss, framing the suit as retaliatory.⁸ As of mid-2026, the case remains pending in federal court.³

The Legal Question That May Decide Dismissal

The motion to dismiss raises whether RICO can reach lawyers for conduct tied to their litigation activity. A related ruling gives some preview. In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Michelle Williams Court dismissed much of a separate RICO suit brought by Ford Motor Company against three lemon-law firms (Knight Law Group, Altman Law Group, and Wirtz Law), citing the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects the right to petition the government, including through litigation.⁹ The court found Ford’s claims targeted fee-seeking activity that fell within those protections. The Ford case was terminated in March 2026, though Ford had been granted leave to amend.¹⁰

Whether the same defense holds in the Uber matter turns on how the court draws the line between alleged fraud and protected petitioning. Judge Court framed the test this way: the question “at this stage is not whether the conduct at issue is fraudulent and abusive, but instead whether the success of [the] lawsuit would constitute a burden on petitioning rights.”⁹

Not Uber’s Only RICO Case

The Emrani suit is part of a broader campaign. In 2025 Uber filed at least three racketeering suits against personal injury attorneys and medical providers in different states, each alleging similar patterns of client steering, inflated billing, and settlement demands aimed at Uber’s rideshare insurance.² One South Florida suit alleged defendants staged accidents and performed unnecessary procedures between 2023 and 2024. Another targeted New York-based lawyers and providers, and additional RICO actions have been filed in Pennsylvania.⁸

Uber has cast the litigation as part of a fight against fraud it says pushes up rider costs. The company notes that 45% of an Uber fare in Los Angeles County goes to government-mandated accident insurance, compared with roughly 5% in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.³

California Lowered the Insurance Floor

The insurance ceiling at the center of Uber’s theory has since changed. California SB 371, signed October 3, 2025, cut the mandatory uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage rideshare companies must carry from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Supporters argued the $1 million threshold itself created the incentive to inflate. The law directs the Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Insurance to study whether the new levels are appropriate, with findings due to the legislature by December 31, 2030.¹¹

Who Jacob Emrani Is

Emrani is the face of the “Call Jacob” personal injury advertising that blankets Los Angeles billboards, some of which he has reportedly begun hanging upside down to draw extra attention.¹² In October 2019 the Los Angeles Lakers announced a multi-season sponsorship with his firm that included in-arena branding, a videoboard feature called the “Call Jacob Selfie Race,” and access to a Staples Center suite.¹³ The firm also lists sponsorships with the Los Angeles Rams and LAFC.¹⁴ That public visibility is part of why the federal case has drawn the attention it has: the attorney whose name sits on Lakers signage is now a named defendant in one of the largest rideshare fraud cases in Los Angeles.

1
PacerMonitor. Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Downtown LA Law Group LLP et al
2
WorkCompAcademy. Uber Alleges L.A. Doctors, Lawyers Filed Fraudulent Claims
3
ABC7. Uber Files Federal Lawsuit Against Known LA Personal Injury Attorneys, Accuses Fraud
4
Chain Law. Fraud, Kickbacks, and Fake Bills: Lawsuit Puts Los Angeles Shady Injury Attorneys Under Fire
5
HHLawFirm. Uber v. DTLA Law Complaint
6
OkorieOkorocha. Uber Lawsuit Complaint
7
Becker’s Spine Review. Uber Lawsuit Claims Spine Surgeon Inflated Medical Claims
8
Law.com. A Very Dangerous Trend: Calif. Lawyers Want Uber Case Tossed as New Company Files RICO Suit
9
ALM Assets. Ford Motor Co. v. Knight Law Group, Dismissal Order
10
CourtListener. Ford Motor Company v. Knight Law Group LLP
11
CalMatters Digital Democracy. SB 371
12
Fodor’s. What’s the Deal With L.A.’s Legal Billboards
13
NBA.com (Lakers). Lakers Announce New Sponsorship With Jacob Emrani
14
CallJacob.com. The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani