April 23 (Reuters) - In a new brief defending a ballot

initiative to cap contingency fees in all civil litigation in

Nevada at 20%, ridesharing company Uber ( UBER ) argued that the petition

meets all of Nevada's statutory requirements for court approval.

Uber ( UBER ), which is the lead sponsor of the Nevada initiative,

said its ballot petition addresses only one issue - the 20%

contingency fee cap - and includes a clear, succinct description

of the direct effect of the proposal, which is to change Nevada

law to limit the fees that lawyers can collect in civil

litigation.

Nevada voters, argued Uber ( UBER ) counsel from Bravo Schrager, will

not be confused or misled about the purpose or effects of the

contingency fee cap when its proponents ask for their signatures

to place the proposal on statewide ballots. And under Nevada

precedent, most notably in the Nevada Supreme Court's 2022

ruling in Helton v. Nevada Voters First PAC, that's essentially

all that is required, Uber ( UBER ) said. (Uber ( UBER ) counsel Bradley Schrager,

whose website bio cites his expertise in Nevada election and

ballot initiative law, knows the 2022 state supreme court case

all too well: He was on the losing side.)

Uber's ( UBER ) April 19 brief is a mere 11 pages - and is notably

devoid of policy arguments about why Uber ( UBER ) and the initiative's

other backers believe the fee cap is a boon for Nevadans.

That's a sharp strategic contrast with the approach taken by

the fee cap's opponents.

As I told you earlier this month, critics of the "draconian"

fee limit, led by the group Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for

Legal Accountability, filed a 43-page complaint asserting that

Uber's ( UBER ) true motive in pushing for a fee cap is to scare

plaintiffs' lawyers away from suing the company.

Opponents' lawyers from Gupta Wessler also filed dozens of

declarations, including sworn statements from more than 30

Nevada lawyers across a range of practice areas, to back their

argument that the proposed fee cap - which would be the most

restrictive fee limit in the U.S. - is bad public policy that

will restrict access to courts for all kinds of would-be

plaintiffs, from patent holders and defrauded shareholders to

law enforcement officers injured on the job.

The challengers' complaint alleged that the Uber ( UBER )-backed

petition fails to meet Nevada requirements for ballot

initiatives because, among other alleged problems, it does not

warn voters of the secondary effects of discouraging lawyers

from taking all kinds of cases. Among them, according to the

complaint: Nevadans will be on the hook for millions of dollars

in Medicaid costs that might otherwise have been reimbursed by

plaintiffs who won payouts from the defendants responsible for

their injuries.

In response, Uber's ( UBER ) brief said that it would be impossible

to address every potential downstream effect of a ballot

initiative in the space of 200 words, which is the statutory

word limit for petitions. The point of the description is to

give potential petition signers a concise explanation of the

intent of the proposal, Uber ( UBER ) said, not to confuse them with all

kinds of hypotheticals.

If anything, Uber ( UBER ) said, challengers' use of "hyperbole and

inflammatory rhetoric" shows why the petition's straightforward

explanation of the proposal's impact is "a model of objective

language."

Challengers' arguments to the contrary, wrote Uber ( UBER ) counsel

from Bravo Schrager, "are policy disputes, not grounds for

finding any legal insufficiency in the petition."

Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler told me on Tuesday that Uber's ( UBER )

failure to address the factual assertions from his side is

notable.

"Their brief is mostly just a boilerplate recitation of

legal standards," Gupta said. "They are studiously not engaging

with our evidence."

Uber ( UBER ) did not respond to my email query. But its brief said

fee cap opponents will have plenty of opportunity to pitch their

policy arguments to voters if the fee cap initiative reaches the

ballot.

Gupta Wessler's clients said in their complaint that the

Nevada fee cap is by far the most sweeping and draconian in the

U.S. Only two other states, Oklahoma and Michigan, impose

across-the-board caps, but their respective 50% and 33% limits

are not nearly as severe as Nevada's proposed 20% cap. Several

states limit fees in medical malpractice cases, but, again, none

sets as stringent a limit as 20%.

Uber's ( UBER ) new brief in the Nevada case noted that Colorado is

weighing a ballot initiative to impose a 25% cap in personal

injury and wrongful death cases. The initiative has survived a

preliminary review by Colorado officials but, as Gupta noted in

our interview, has not yet been subjected to a challenge by

trial lawyers or plaintiffs' groups.

Uber's ( UBER ) ballot initiative in Nevada is far more ambitious

than even the Colorado proposal, of course, which is why Gupta

Wessler's clients are so determined to squelch the initiative

before its backers even begin to collect the 100,000 signatures

they need to get it on the state ballot.

Their response to Uber's ( UBER ) brief is due on Thursday. I'm

expecting an argument along these lines: Their copious evidence

of fallout from the proposed fee cap proves that even the

question of Uber's ( UBER ) compliance with Nevada's statutory

requirements is not nearly as simple as the company's lawyers

have argued.

Read more:

Uber ( UBER ) sex assault group sues to block Nevada bid to cap all

contingency fees at 20%