By David Thomas

Aug 21 (Reuters) - A civil racketeering lawsuit brought by Uber (UBER.N) alleging lawyers and doctors in California conspired to generate fraudulent injury claims is moving ahead after a judge refused to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, in a ruling made public on Thursday, dismissed one claim Uber brought under the federal anti-racketeering law known as RICO – a conspiracy charge against all defendants – but kept the rideshare giant’s other RICO claims intact. Garnett said she would allow Uber to seek to revive the dismissed claim.

Uber alleges in the lawsuit that “unscrupulous personal injury attorneys” were sending clients to “corrupt medical providers” for unnecessary or unrelated medical treatment in a kickback scheme designed to generate fraudulent injury claims.

Two of the defendant law firms, Downtown LA Law Group and the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, argued they were immune under a legal doctrine known as Noerr-Pennington, which stems from the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of the right to petition the government.

But that doctrine does not protect sham litigation, Garnett said. Uber claimed that the law firms made “false and misleading statements concerning the severity of their clients’ injuries, the necessity of the medical treatment, and the nature of the lien agreements, each of which was an ‘essential element’ of their claims,” she wrote, adding that is enough to proceed at this stage of the litigation. An Uber spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys for Downtown LA Law Group and the Emrani law firm, which have denied wrongdoing, also did not immediately respond.

In a partial loss for Uber, Garnett ordered the company to pay attorney fees to three of the defendants, including the Emrani firm and a California surgeon, even though they still have RICO claims pending against them. The judge found that Uber dropped some of its initial claims to avoid defending them against the plaintiffs’ arguments that it was violating a California law against using litigation to stifle debate. The case is at least one of 20 such actions Uber and other major companies have filed invoking civil RICO provisions against plaintiffs’ lawyers in U.S. federal courts over the last two years. Damages are tripled under RICO if the plaintiff wins. Uber has similar lawsuits pending against other law firms in Miami, New York and Philadelphia. Uber so far has a mixed track record in the litigation. A federal judge hearing the Philadelphia case ruled in May that a personal injury lawyer and his firm must face claims by Uber and FedEx Corp (FDX.N) alleging they directed clients to medical providers in a scheme to exaggerate injuries and create false medical records. Philadelphia-based personal injury lawyer Marc Simon and his firm have denied wrongdoing. But the rideshare giant’s similar RICO lawsuit against three New York law firms was dismissed by a federal judge last week who said Uber failed to show that the firms benefited from their association with the doctors, “other than from commonplace fee-sharing arrangements, client referrals, and medical testimony, not bribes.”

The case is Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Downtown LA Law Group LLP et al, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 2:25-cv-00612.

For Uber: Olivia Gold, Gillian Kuhlmann, Tara McGrath, Joshua Patashnik, David Daniels, Michael Huston, David Massey of Ashurst Perkins Coie

For Downtown LA Law Group and Igor Fradkin: David Scheper, Alexander Cote and Katelyn Taira of Winston Taylor For Jacob Emrani and the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani: John Hueston, Marshall Camp, Bram Alden and Stewart Rickert of Hueston Hennigan LLP