Uber also contended that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that "the ADA and DCHRA apply to its app, and that even if those statutes do apply, Uber's services do not constitute discrimination and cannot be reasonably modified." Additionally, Uber claimed that the DCHRA claim is barred by its one-year statutory limitations period. Considering Uber's motion to dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff "has associational standing to bring the complaint's ADA and DCHRA claims on behalf of its members." The court added that the complaint plausibly alleged Uber's eligibility for regulation under Title III of the ADA and the DCHRA. According to the court, the ERC also claimed "circumstances that plausibly sustain discrimination claims under the cited statutes" and the plaintiff's DCHRA claim was timely. As a result, the court denied Uber's motion to dismiss. Uber is represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.