Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV01188, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01188    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Jose Luis Gutierrez and Shendall D. Duncan filed a complaint against Lyft Inc., Janel Chow, and Does 1 to 50, alleging injuries from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs allege that on January 11, 2020, Defendants’ vehicle collided with Plaintiff Jose Luis Gutierrez’s vehicle. Shendall D. Duncan was a passenger in the vehicle.

Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) now moves to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings as to Plaintiff Jose Luis Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) pending completion of arbitration.   

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs a motion to compel arbitration when an agreement provides its ‘enforcement’ shall be governed by the FAA. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jamon Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346.)

Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the parties’ dispute.¿(9 U.S.C., § 4;¿Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Systems, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.) If the finding is affirmative on both counts, the FAA requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms. (Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716, 719–720.)¿

“The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) 

“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

DISCUSSION

Lyft moves to compel arbitration on the grounds that Gutierrez agreed to arbitrate by agreeing to its Terms of Service. The agreement reads in pertinent part: 

“(a) Agreement to Binding Arbitration Between You and Lyft. YOU AND LYFT MUTUALLY AGREE TO WAIVE OUR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE OR JURY AND AGREE TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY ARBITRATION, as set forth below. This agreement to arbitrate ("Arbitration Agreement") is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and survives after the Agreement terminates or your relationship with Lyft ends. ANY ARBITRATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL TAKE PLACE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS; CLASS ARBITRATIONS AND CLASS ACTIONS ARE NOT PERMITTED. Except as expressly provided below, this Arbitration Agreement applies to all Claims (defined below) between you and Lyft, including our affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, successors and assigns, and each of our respective officers, directors, employees, agents, or shareholders. . . . Except as expressly provided below, ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US (EACH A "CLAIM" AND COLLECTIVELY, "CLAIMS") SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION SOLELY BETWEEN YOU AND LYFT. These Claims include, but are not limited to, any dispute, claim or controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, arising out of or relating to: this Agreement and prior versions thereof (including the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof), the Lyft Platform, . . . any other goods or services made available through the Lyft Platform . . . .”

(McCachern Decl. ¶ 12, Exh. 5, 17a.)

First, the FAA governs the agreement according to the explicit terms. Lyft presents evidence from its Safety Program Lead that Gutierrez was using Lyft’s services on January 11, 2020 when the subject accident occurred. (Id. ¶ 13.)  The terms above represent the August 26, 2019 arbitration agreement that was in effect on the day of the incident. (Id. ¶ 12.) Lyft’s Safety Program Lead declares that on November 1, 2019, Gutierrez accepted the terms through the Lyft Application (App). (Id. ¶ 12, 14.) Clickwrap agreements are those in which website users are required to click on an “I agree” box after being presented with a list of terms and conditions of use.  (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1171, 1175-76.)  “Clickwrap agreements require a user to affirmatively click a box on the website acknowledging awareness of and agreement to the terms of service before he or she is allowed to proceed with further utilization of the website. [Citations omitted] Clickwrap agreements ‘have been routinely upheld by circuit and district courts…”  (United States v. Drew (C.D. Cal. 2009) 259 F.R.D. 449, 462 n.22 [internal quotations omitted].)  Here, the Lyft App directed Gutierrez to scroll through and read the entire terms of service and then required Gutierrez to click a button demonstrating his consent. (McCachern Decl. ¶ 14.) Because the evidence shows that Gutierrez had to read through the terms before affirmatively clicking a button in consent, Lyft meets its burden to show there was a valid agreement.

Second, the provision states that all disputes and claims between Lyft that arise out of any services through the Lyft Platform will be exclusively resolved by binding arbitration. Therefore, because Lyft maintains Gutierrez was using its services when the accident occurred, Lyft has met its burden that the agreement covers the present controversy. Gutierrez does not oppose this motion and therefore, fails to meet his burden.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all judicial proceedings pending the completion of arbitration is GRANTED.

The matter is set for an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal Due to Completion of Arbitration for August 19, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.