The Gonzales Writ and TNC Liability

Bottom line. Gonzales v. Orange County Superior Court, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Case No. G085932 (writ proceeding pending in the California Court of Appeal), is the most important pending state-court TNC matter in California. The petition presents the same doctrinal questions the seven-theory framework answers, and a published decision in the petitioner's favor would resolve the asymmetry at the appellate level. The Homampour Law Firm has appeared as amicus curiae in support of the petitioner.

---

What the asymmetry has been

For five years, Uber and Lyft told California courts that Proposition 22 quietly rewrote tort law and barred many tort-liability theories involving driver conduct on public highways. They made that argument in arbitrations that produced no published opinions and in trial-court motions that most plaintiffs' lawyers, working without specialized expertise, did not have the time or resources to fully oppose. In that asymmetric environment, they largely won.

That state of affairs has been the structural background of every TNC matter in California. The defense bar has accumulated a body of unpublished trial-court orders and confidential arbitration awards reciting Proposition 22 as immunity. Plaintiffs' counsel encountering the argument for the first time have rarely had the time, budget, or institutional knowledge to fully develop the seven-theory response.

The Gonzales writ is the proceeding poised to end that asymmetry at the level of binding California appellate authority.

---

What Gonzales is about

The Gonzales writ proceeding challenges an Orange County trial court ruling that effectively immunized Uber from tort liability under Proposition 22. The petition presents the doctrinal questions the seven-theory framework addresses:

• Whether Business and Professions Code § 7451's classification clause reaches third-party tort liability.
• Whether Public Utilities Code § 5354 imputes driver conduct to permit holders independently of employment classification.
• Whether the regulatory framework Uber accepted when it took its CPUC permit can be displaced by silent inference from a labor-classification initiative that does not mention the Public Utilities Code.

The trial court answered yes to the immunity argument. The Court of Appeal will review.

---

The amicus line-up tells the story

The contrast in the line-up of amici tells the story of the litigation.

On the petitioner's side

• The Homampour Law Firm filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.
• Consumer Attorneys of California filed an amicus brief on the petitioner's side.
• The plaintiffs' bar, the consumer-advocacy bar, and practitioners who have litigated the seven-theory framework at the trial and arbitration levels are urging the court to confine Proposition 22 to its actual subject: labor classification.

On the defense side

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a coalition amicus brief urging the Court of Appeal to hold that Proposition 22 classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors for purposes of TNC vicarious liability.
• The TNC defense bar and its institutional allies are pressing the Court of Appeal to extend Proposition 22 into an across-the-board tort immunity.

---

What the Homampour amicus brief covers

The Homampour amicus brief incorporates responses to Uber's Formal Return filed March 9, 2026, including specific rebuttals to:

1. Uber's "waiver" argument that the petitioner waived statutory imputation by failing to plead it specifically below.
2. Uber's "notwithstanding any other provision of law" argument that § 7451's opening clause displaces contrary law across-the-board.
3. Uber's reliance on the unpublished Pears v. Lyft trial court order, which the TNC defense relies on heavily despite its lack of precedential value.

The brief explains why each argument fails on the same grounds set out in the seven-theory framework:

• § 7451's limiting clause confines its scope to the driver-network company relationship. Prop 22 deep dive →
• The omission of the Public Utilities Code from § 7451's enumeration is dispositive under the surplusage canon and expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• Pears has no precedential value and rests on a misreading of § 5354's "construing and enforcing" language. The "construing and enforcing" language expands the statute's reach to all interpretation and enforcement contexts; it does not limit it.
• Uber's coalition is judicially estopped by its own single-subject representations in Castellanos from now claiming a broader scope for the initiative.

---

What a favorable Gonzales ruling would do

As of the date of this paper, the Gonzales writ proceeding remains pending before the Court of Appeal. A published decision in the petitioner's favor would be transformative:

• It would displace the trial court orders the TNC defense currently relies on.
• It would foreclose the Proposition 22 immunity argument as a matter of binding California appellate authority.
• It would resolve the asymmetry that has allowed Uber's expansive reading to win unopposed in trial courts and arbitrations across the state.

Even an unpublished decision rejecting the immunity defense would deprive the TNCs of one of their most-cited summary-judgment authorities.

---

What practitioners with pending TNC cases should do

Monitor Gonzales closely. A favorable ruling there could shift the litigation posture in every California TNC matter, and the framework set out in this cluster will move from persuasive to binding.

In the meantime:

1. Cite the framework, not Gonzales. The seven theories operate independently of any single appellate decision; Gonzales is the cleanup of an already-defeated defense theory.
2. Track Court of Appeal docket activity. Oral argument and decision could shift settlement leverage in any pending TNC case.
3. Plead all seven theories now. A favorable Gonzales decision will matter only if your pleadings are positioned to use it. A complaint that pleaded only respondeat superior against the driver and the TNC will not benefit.
4. Consider an amicus contribution. Future TNC writ petitions and appeals will benefit from the Homampour briefing record; consult with the firm about coordination.

For coordination on amicus efforts or to discuss a pending TNC matter, contact The Homampour Law Firm at (323) 252-7921 or [email protected].

---

Practitioner playbook

1. Plead all seven theories before Gonzales is decided. A favorable ruling is most valuable to a complaint that already deploys the framework.
2. Quote the Homampour amicus rebuttals in your own briefing on Pears, Uber's "notwithstanding" argument, and the waiver doctrine.
3. Calendar the Court of Appeal docket. Watch for oral argument, supplemental briefing requests, and decision.
4. Pair Gonzales with Rutkovitz. Rutkovitz is the trial-level proof of the framework; Gonzales will be the appellate-level resolution. Cite both.
5. Use the amicus filings publicly. Both the Homampour amicus and the CAOC amicus are public documents and excellent CLE/listserve content.

---

See also

• Hub: The Seven-Theory Framework
• Proposition 22 Is a Labor Statute, Not a Tort Immunity
• PUC § 5354 — Statutory Imputation Without Employment
• Federal MDL Bellwethers — Dean (Arizona) and Mensing (N.C.)
• Press: April 30, 2026 Daily Journal Byline + Rutkovitz Award

---