Kiefer Sutherland Uber Driver Lawsuit, Actor Claims Self-Defense Against Assault Allegations

Actor Kiefer Sutherland is contesting a civil lawsuit filed by Uber driver Rafael Manvelyan, who alleges that Sutherland threatened, punched and choked him during a January 12, 2026 ride in Los Angeles.

In a court response dated November 10, 2026, publicly reported on November 13, Sutherland denied the allegations and argued that any physical force he used was necessary to protect himself from what he believed was an imminent threat. He is reported to be seeking dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.

Everything below about what happened in the car is an allegation or a defense position. No court has found that Sutherland committed assault or battery, and no court has found that Manvelyan’s claims lack merit.

Manvelyan claims physical injuries, psychological trauma, medical expenses and lost income. Sutherland denies causing those injuries. Both sides have requested a jury trial. No final ruling, settlement or damages award has been verified.

The civil case follows Sutherland’s January arrest on suspicion of making criminal threats. An arrest is not a conviction, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office previously returned the criminal matter to police for further investigation.

Quick Facts: Manvelyan v. Sutherland

Detail	Information
Plaintiff	Rafael Manvelyan, Uber driver
Defendant	Kiefer Sutherland, actor
Incident date	January 12, 2026, shortly after midnight
Location	Near Sunset Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue, Los Angeles
Claims alleged	Assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence
Plaintiff’s attorney	Mitra Sabouri
Defense attorney	Andrew Brettler
Arrest	January 12, 2026, on suspicion of felony criminal threats
Bond posted	$50,000
Criminal charges filed?	None verified
Lawsuit first publicly reported	June 12, 2026
Complaint date in latest reporting	October 12, 2026 (conflicts with earlier reports; docket verification needed)
Sutherland’s court response	November 10, 2026
Latest news development	November 13, 2026
Principal defense	Self-defense
Other reported defenses	No causation of claimed injuries; claims time-barred; lawsuit brought in bad faith
Relief sought by defense	Dismissal with prejudice
Damages requested	Unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
Jury trial requested?	Yes, by both sides
Settlement?	None announced
Final ruling?	None
Civil case number	Not independently verified

What Does the Driver Allege?

According to published descriptions of the civil complaint, Manvelyan picked up Sutherland for an Uber Black ride in Los Angeles after the actor had been dining with a friend. The complaint alleges:

• Sutherland appeared intoxicated when he entered the vehicle.
• Communication was difficult because Manvelyan primarily speaks Russian and Armenian and has limited English proficiency.
• Sutherland became verbally aggressive and threatened serious bodily injury and death.
• Sutherland repeatedly punched the driver in the head, face, neck and upper body while the vehicle was being driven.
• Sutherland placed the driver in a chokehold.
• Manvelyan eventually got out and ran because he feared for his safety, and Sutherland allegedly followed while continuing to make threats.

He alleges injuries to his head and face, neck and cervical spine, right shoulder, thoracic and lumbar spine and nervous system, plus anxiety, nightmares, fear and trouble sleeping. These allegations have not been tested at trial.

What Is Sutherland’s Defense?

Sutherland disputes the driver’s account. His attorney has said the actor repeatedly asked the driver to stop and let him out, and the requests were refused. In the November 10 response, as described in news reports, Sutherland:

• Asserts that he reasonably believed the driver posed an imminent threat of bodily harm and that any force he used was no more than reasonably necessary
• Disputes that he assaulted Manvelyan, or acted recklessly or maliciously
• Disputes the extent and cause of the claimed injuries and emotional distress, suggesting other circumstances may explain them
• Asserts that the claims are time-barred
• Characterizes the lawsuit as groundless and brought in bad faith

These are defenses asserted by Sutherland, not findings by the court. His attorney has also characterized the driver as seeking millions of dollars. That is the defense’s description, not a verified demand or award.

Why Was Sutherland Arrested in January?

Los Angeles police responded around 12:15 a.m. on January 12 to a reported confrontation involving a rideshare driver near Sunset and Fairfax. Police arrested Sutherland on suspicion of criminal threats and he was released after posting $50,000 bond.

California Penal Code § 422 covers certain threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, subject to specific elements. Being arrested on suspicion of an offense does not mean prosecutors charged or proved it.

Was He Criminally Charged?

In February 2026, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said the case had been returned to police for additional investigation and that no charges had been filed. Reports in March indicated prosecutors were reviewing additional evidence. No later criminal charge or conviction was verified in the sources reviewed through November 14, 2026.

The civil lawsuit can proceed separately from any criminal investigation.

Civil Case vs. Criminal Investigation

Issue	Civil Lawsuit	Criminal Investigation
Who brings it	Rafael Manvelyan	Government prosecutors, if charges are filed
Purpose	Compensation and other civil relief	Determine criminal responsibility
Claims	Assault, battery, emotional distress, negligence	Suspected criminal threats and any other charged offense
Burden of proof	Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)	Beyond a reasonable doubt
Possible outcomes	Damages, dismissal or settlement	Conviction, acquittal or no charges
Current status	Contested	No later charging decision verified

A civil claim does not require a criminal conviction, and an arrest does not establish civil liability. Because the two cases can overlap, defendants in civil cases sometimes limit what they say while a criminal matter is open.

California Law Behind the Claims

The Four Civil Claims

1. Assault (CACI No. 1301; Pen. Code § 240 as a criminal parallel): Generally, intentionally acting so that another reasonably believes they are about to be harmed or touched in a harmful or offensive way, without consent, causing harm. Actual contact is not required.
2. Battery (CACI No. 1300; Pen. Code § 242 as a criminal parallel): Generally, intentional harmful or offensive touching without consent that causes harm. The alleged punches and chokehold are central to this claim.
3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (CACI No. 1600): Requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or reckless disregard, severe emotional distress and causation.
4. Negligence (CACI No. 400 et seq.): Duty, breach, causation and legally compensable harm. The precise negligence theory should be checked against the operative complaint.

Self-Defense

• Civil Code § 50: Permits the use of necessary force to protect a person from wrongful injury.
• CACI No. 1304: In an assault or battery case, a defendant claiming self-defense generally must show that they reasonably believed the plaintiff was going to harm them and used no more force than reasonably necessary.
• Penal Code §§ 692–694: Describe lawful resistance to a public offense, which can inform how courts analyze self-defense.

Self-defense is not unlimited immunity. A driver’s refusal to pull over can help explain why a dispute arose, but it does not automatically justify punching or choking the driver. The question is whether Sutherland reasonably feared imminent harm and whether any force was proportionate. A sincere belief is relevant, but the belief and the force must both be reasonable under the circumstances. The driver’s allegations also do not automatically defeat a valid self-defense claim. It turns on evidence: the vehicle’s movement, the passenger’s requests, the driver’s conduct and any recordings.

Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 generally sets a two-year limitations period for assault, battery and personal injury claims. The incident was January 12, 2026, and a lawsuit was reported by June 12, 2026. A later report cites an October 12 filing. On their face, both dates fall within two years of the incident. The reason Sutherland asserted a time-bar defense, and whether it applies to any particular claim, cannot be determined without the full operative pleading and response. No court ruling accepting that defense was verified.

Damages

If the plaintiff proves a legally actionable claim, recoverable damages may include medical expenses, lost earnings, reduced earning capacity and pain and suffering. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice under Civil Code § 3294 and are not awarded automatically because a defendant is famous or wealthy. No damages have been awarded.

Procedure: What “Dismissal With Prejudice” Means

Dismissal with prejudice generally bars the plaintiff from bringing the same dismissed claims again. Requesting it is different from obtaining it. In California state court, defendants commonly challenge a complaint through an answer raising affirmative defenses (such as self-defense and the statute of limitations), a demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings under § 438. Public reports describe a “response” and a request for dismissal, and which procedural vehicle was used and when it will be heard have not been verified.

Jury Trial

Both parties have requested a jury, consistent with California’s constitutional jury right in civil cases. A request does not guarantee a trial. The case could be settled, narrowed or resolved earlier.

The Dashcam Question

Manvelyan’s complaint reportedly states that his vehicle had a dashboard camera that may have captured some or all of the confrontation, and refers to possible witnesses. His attorney has said the footage is not being publicly released. No authenticated recording establishing either side’s version was available in the materials reviewed.

If footage exists, it could help show what was said, whether Sutherland asked to stop, whether contact occurred, who started it, whether force was proportionate and what happened when the driver left the car. But a recording may capture only part of an encounter, and the parties could dispute its completeness or meaning. It should not be assumed to prove either account until authenticated and evaluated. Because California requires consent from all parties to record confidential communications (Penal Code § 632), the admissibility of any audio is also a question lawyers may raise.

Didn’t Police Say the Driver Declined Medical Treatment?

Police reported that the driver did not need immediate medical treatment at the scene. That is different from a medical finding that no injury occurred. Some injuries are not obvious at first, and psychological symptoms may appear later. Sutherland disputes the claimed injuries and their cause. If the case proceeds, medical records, treatment history and other evidence will matter.

When Was the Lawsuit Actually Filed?

Published reporting conflicts. TMZ and Us Weekly discussed a lawsuit by Manvelyan as early as June 12, 2026, including statements from both sides’ attorneys. A November 13 PEOPLE report gives October 12, 2026 as the complaint’s filing date. That could reflect a later or amended pleading, or a reporting discrepancy, but that has not been verified. The original filing date, any amended complaint and the case number should be confirmed through the Los Angeles Superior Court’s civil case system. Until then, this article does not state a definitive original filing date.

Is Uber Being Sued?

Reports describe the lawsuit as against Sutherland, not as an established claim against Uber. Driving for Uber does not automatically make Uber liable for an alleged passenger assault. Any responsibility would depend on Uber’s contractual arrangements with drivers, California law and claims actually brought. There is no verified Uber compensation program or class settlement arising from this incident.

Tax and Fees

Tax: Under Internal Revenue Code § 104(a)(2), damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness are generally excluded from income, but punitive damages and emotional distress damages not tied to physical injury are generally treated differently. This is general information, not tax advice.

Fees: Personal injury plaintiffs’ lawyers commonly work on contingency, often one-third or more of a recovery, while defense counsel are commonly paid hourly or by negotiated fee. Terms vary, and neither side’s fee arrangements in this case were verified.

What Happens Next?

Possible developments include a ruling on any request to dismiss or narrow the claims, written discovery, depositions (including any dashcam footage and medical records), and eventually trial or settlement. No verified trial date or settlement has been announced.

Timeline

Date	Development
January 12, 2026	Alleged confrontation; Sutherland arrested in Los Angeles and released on $50,000 bond
February 2, 2026	Prosecutors confirm the criminal case was returned to police for further investigation
March 2, 2026	Reports indicate continued review of additional evidence
June 12, 2026	Media report Manvelyan’s civil lawsuit and statements from both sides
October 12, 2026	Later reporting gives this as a complaint filing date; docket confirmation needed
November 10, 2026	Sutherland’s reported court response asserting self-defense
November 13, 2026	News reports detail Sutherland’s denial and request for dismissal
November 14, 2026	No verified civil ruling, settlement or trial date

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Kiefer Sutherland being sued?

Uber driver Rafael Manvelyan alleges the actor assaulted and threatened him during a January 12, 2026 ride in Los Angeles.

Who is Rafael Manvelyan?

The Uber driver who filed the civil lawsuit.

Did Sutherland choke the driver?

The driver alleges a chokehold. Sutherland denies the allegations and asserts self-defense. Nothing has been proven.

What is Sutherland’s version?

His lawyers say the driver refused repeated requests to stop the vehicle and that Sutherland believed he faced an imminent threat.

Was Sutherland intoxicated?

The driver alleges so. That allegation has not been established as fact.

Was Sutherland arrested?

Yes, on January 12, 2026, on suspicion of criminal threats. He was released on $50,000 bond.

Has he been criminally charged or convicted?

No criminal charge or conviction arising from this incident was verified.

What injuries does the driver claim?

Injuries to his head, neck, back and shoulder and emotional distress. Sutherland disputes the injuries and their cause.

Is there dashcam footage?

The complaint reportedly refers to possible footage. No authenticated recording was available for review.

How much money is being sought?

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. No award or settlement has been announced.

Has the lawsuit been dismissed?

No dismissal was verified. Sutherland is seeking it.

Is there a settlement?

No.

Is there a trial date?

No verified trial date.

Is Uber a defendant?

Reports describe the suit as against Sutherland.

Bottom Line

Kiefer Sutherland is fighting a civil lawsuit over an alleged January 2026 confrontation in a Los Angeles Uber. Manvelyan alleges assault, physical injury and emotional trauma. Sutherland denies the allegations and claims self-defense.

The latest development is Sutherland’s November 10 court response, reported November 13. It is not a settlement or a finding of wrongdoing.

The key legal questions are what happened inside the vehicle, whether Sutherland reasonably believed he faced imminent harm, whether any force was proportionate, and whether the driver can prove compensable injuries. The case is unresolved.

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. All disputed allegations are attributed to the parties. No civil liability or criminal guilt has been established.

Sources

1. PEOPLE, Nov. 13, 2026, reporting on Sutherland’s denial and self-defense claim: https://people.com/kiefer-sutherland-denies-uber-drivers-claims-of-assault-12252844
2. TMZ, Nov. 13, 2026, reporting on Sutherland’s request to dismiss: https://www.tmz.com/2026/11/13/kiefer-sutherland-asks-judge-toss-uber-driver-lawsuit-self-defense/
3. TMZ, June 12, 2026, reporting on the driver’s lawsuit and attorney responses: https://www.tmz.com/2026/06/12/kiefer-sutherland-uber-driver-files-lawsuit/
4. ABC News, Feb. 2026, reporting on the criminal investigation: https://abcnews.com/GMA/Culture/kiefer-sutherland-case-hold-amid-investigation-alleged-altercation/story?id=129716044
5. Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Case Search: https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/paos/v2web3/CivilIndex
6. California Courts Self-Help, Personal Injury Lawsuits: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/civil-lawsuit/personal-injury
7. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-2/title-2/chapter-3/section-335-1/
8. CACI No. 1304 (Self-Defense): https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1300/1304/
9. CACI No. 1600 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress): https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1600/1600/
10. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (Punitive Damages): https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-4/part-1/title-2/chapter-1/article-3/section-3294/
11. Cal. Civ. Code § 50; Cal. Penal Code §§ 240, 242, 422, 632, 692–694; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.10, 438; CACI Nos. 400, 1300, 1301; 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)

Source limitation: The complaint and the November 10 response were described by journalists who reviewed court documents. The full filings and the case number could not be independently verified. Confirm the filing date, case number and the form of the November 10 filing through the Los Angeles Superior Court before publishing.