The Issaquah Uber Driver Murder Case That Reached the Ninth Circuit

The murder of Issaquah rideshare driver Cherno Ceesay led to a Washington civil case that traveled from federal district court to the Ninth Circuit, prompted certified questions to the Washington Supreme Court, drew a U.S. Supreme Court petition, and ultimately ended in a confidential settlement before trial.

The Ride Began With a False Rider Account

Ceesay accepted a ride request on December 13, 2020. Court records later described the account as having been created shortly before the ride using prepaid credentials and a name that did not identify the people who allegedly used it. Ceesay was killed during the encounter. The criminal cases against the people accused in his death later resulted in prison sentences.

The Civil Lawsuit Asked a Different Question

The family did not need the civil case to identify who physically attacked Ceesay. Their lawsuit focused on whether Uber could owe a duty of reasonable care to drivers using a platform that Uber controlled, particularly where the platform determined what rider information was collected, verified and shown to the driver.

Uber disputed the existence and scope of that duty and initially won summary judgment in federal district court. That ruling ended the case before a jury could consider breach or causation.

The Ninth Circuit Revived the Case

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit confronted unsettled questions of Washington tort law. It certified questions to the Washington Supreme Court, which declined to answer them. The federal panel then had to predict how Washington law would apply.

In an unpublished 2–1 disposition in August 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment. The majority focused on the platform's control over matching and rider information and concluded that the family had enough to continue litigating duty and foreseeability. The ruling did not find Uber negligent, did not decide causation, and did not award damages.

The Unpublished Status Matters

The Ninth Circuit expressly designated the disposition as not for publication. It was decisive for the parties in that case, but it should not be described as binding Washington Supreme Court precedent or as a rule that makes a rideshare company automatically liable whenever a driver is attacked.

Uber Sought Supreme Court Review

After further appellate proceedings, Uber petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court denied certiorari in October 2025. A denial of certiorari is not an endorsement of the lower court's reasoning; it simply left the Ninth Circuit's ruling in place for the case.

The Case Settled Before the Scheduled Trial

The litigation returned to federal district court and was moving toward a 2026 trial. Instead, the parties reached a resolution after a settlement conference in December 2025. The case was dismissed in January 2026. The settlement terms were confidential, so there is no public settlement amount and there was no civil jury verdict.

Why the Case Matters to Washington Rideshare Drivers

The strongest lesson from the litigation is about platform architecture. A driver cannot independently decide what information a rider must provide to enter the system or what verification appears before a request is accepted. The Ninth Circuit majority viewed that dependence and control as relevant to whether a duty could exist.

The limits are just as important. The appellate court did not decide whether Uber breached a duty in Ceesay's case or whether any platform decision legally caused his death. Settlement ended the case before a jury answered those questions.

For Washington drivers and families evaluating a platform-safety claim, Drammeh is therefore useful because of the questions it preserved for trial, not because it produced a damages verdict. It shows how rider identity, account records, prior incidents, platform controls and foreseeability can become central evidence when the immediate harm is inflicted by a third party.