Key Takeaways
According to a recent Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision, attorneys alleged to have directed medical providers to manufacture fraudulent evidence cannot claim Petition Clause immunity. Uber v. Simon & Simon ruled that Noerr-Pennington does not shield pre-filing fabrication of evidence that is actionable as fraud, a pattern of filings pursued without regard to merit, or misrepresentations that infect the core of underlying claims—and it does not protect the attorneys and conspirators alleged to have orchestrated such claims.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently permitted Uber and FedEx’s RICO suit against a plaintiff personal injury law firm and its affiliated doctors to proceed, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss which sought immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Uber Techs., Inc. v. Simon & Simon, P.C., No. 25-5365, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103792, at *14 (E.D. Pa. 2026).
The Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides First Amendment protections for petitioning activity, like filing a lawsuit. Id. at *15-16. However, the doctrine does not protect “sham litigation”—cases that are filed not to resolve an issue on its merits, but to harass or harm another party. Id. at *16. Nor does it protect pre-filing activity that occurs outside the litigation process. Id. at *22.
The court found that Uber and FedEx plausibly pleaded that the law firm identified clients with minor injuries or limited tort coverage, referred them to specific medical professionals who administered unnecessary medical procedures and generated fraudulent medical records, and repeated this practice across multiple claimants and cases over several years, driving up settlement demands. Id. at *26-27. Taking these allegations as true, the court found that they support a plausible inference that the defendants pursued litigation without regard to its merits and misused governmental processes. Id. at *27-28. Further, the court found that communications between the law firm and the doctors occurred outside of the litigation process and were not incidental to litigation. Id. at *22. The court stated that to extend Noerr-Pennington protection to pre-litigation communications with third parties not threatened with litigation would stretch the doctrine beyond its limits, covering “virtually all prelitigation activity undertaken by a party or its agents.” Id.
The court distinguished the facts at hand from those of the case defendants relied on, which involved allegedly inflated billing records submitted after clients had already prevailed on the merits—misrepresentations that left the underlying legal claims intact. Id. at *37-38. Here, by contrast, plaintiffs alleged that defendants manufactured the medical evidence needed to create and maintain the personal injury claims from the outset. Id. If proven, such conduct could “deprive the litigation of legitimacy” in a fundamentally different way. Id.
The implicated law firm has filed a counterclaim against Uber and FedEx recently accusing them of pursuing sham litigation, abuse of process, and extortion.
Contributors
The authors would like to thank Devon Moore for her contributions to this article.
