Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV07862, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07862    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Uber Technologies Inc. is Granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Veronica Ortez filed this acting against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Hong Xia Lin, Nile Dedon Willingham, Lavonne Willingham, and doe defendants 1- 20 for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on December 30, 2022.

The motion now before the Court is Uber’s motion to Compel Arbitration. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72. The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence; the party opposing the petition then bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to demonstrate that there should be no enforcement of the agreement. Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 empowers the court to compel parties to arbitrate disputes under an agreement to do so. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2; Provencio v. WMA Securities, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1031.

Here, Uber contends Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claims against Uber, including those in this action. Uber asserts Plaintiff initially registered for an Uber account on November 7, 2016, and accepted Uber’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement. The Terms that were in effect when Plaintiff registered for the account, were the Terms of Service from January 2016. Plaintiff later received an email on November 14, 2016, with the subject line “We’ve Updated Our Terms of Use” that provided notice of updates to the Rider App Terms & Conditions. The email stated that continued use of the Uber App would constitute assent to the updated Terms, and the Terms were available via hyperlink in the email. The email contained the Terms of Use from November 2016.  Uber states that the January 2016 Terms and November 2016 Terms included a provision that all disputes or claims arising from the Agreement would be resolved via arbitration and the fact that all questions, including the interpretation of the scope of the Terms, are solely within the discretion of the arbitrator. Gaddis Decl. ¶¶ 7-10 Exh. B, E.

Uber argues the Terms include a clear and conspicuous arbitration provision, and the parties agreed the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) would govern the agreement. Uber states that on February 28, 2021, December 25, 2021, and January 23, 2023, Plaintiff was presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen with the header, “We’ve updated our terms. Gaddis Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. F. Under the message, the phrases “Terms of Use” and “Privacy Notice” were displayed in blue text to set it apart from the other text on the screen and indicate a hyperlink. The in-app pop-up screen stated, “By checking the box, I have reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice.” Ibid. Uber contends Plaintiff clicked the checkbox and tapped “Confirm,” and by doing so, Plaintiff expressly consented to the January 18, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023, Terms by checking the box. Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and, therefore, does not dispute this action arises out of Plaintiff’s use of Uber’s services.

Clickwrap agreements are those in which website users must click on an “I agree” box after being presented with a link to the terms and conditions of use. Herzog v. Superior Court (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1280, 1296. Such agreements are generally enforceable if they feature reasonably conspicuous terms and an unambiguous manifestation of assent. Ibid.

Uber’s unopposed evidence shows Plaintiff took affirmative actions demonstrating agreement with the license agreements and terms of sale, all of which contained arbitration agreements. Accordingly, Uber has shown the existence of an arbitration agreement consented to by Plaintiff. Furthermore, the agreement provides Plaintiff agrees to arbitrate any claim arising out of or relating to Plaintiff’s use of services, incidents, or accidents resulting in personal injury, “whether the dispute, claim or controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to the Terms.” Gaddis Decl. Exh. E.

In addition, while courts often decide issues of arbitrability, the “‘parties can agree to arbitrate “gateway” questions of “arbitrability,” such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.”’ Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 891 (quoting Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 68-69.)

Here, the agreement expressly grants the arbitrator exclusive authority to resolve “any disputes relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Arbitration Agreement … and that [t]he Arbitrator shall also be responsible for determining all threshold arbitrability issues. Gaddis Decl. Exh. G.

The Court finds Uber has established there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate Plaintiff's claims as to Uber. Accordingly, the Court grants Uber’s unopposed motion to arbitrate. Because there is a risk of conflicting rulings, the case is stayed pending arbitration.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Uber is granted. The case is ordered stayed pending binding arbitration as to the entire action.