Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV03549, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03549    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    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 February 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Melissa Dematos and Consuelo Clarence Gouveia (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants Uber Technologies (“Uber”), Filmon Ayansa, and Does 1 to 20, alleging injuries from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs allege that on December 11, 2022, they were passengers in Ayansa’s vehicle, who was driving for Uber. (Complaint, 5.)

Uber now moves to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings pending completion of arbitration. No opposition has been filed.   

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

Uber moves to compel arbitration on the grounds that Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate by agreeing to its Terms of Service. The agreements read in pertinent part:

“(a) Agreement to Binding Arbitration Between You and Uber.

Except as expressly provided below in Section 2(b), you and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to (i) these Terms and prior versions of these Terms, or the existence, breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, scope, waiver, or validity thereof, (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services, whether the dispute, claim or controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to the Terms, or (iv) your relationship with Uber, will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law. This Agreement survives after your relationship with Uber ends. …

(c) …Notwithstanding any choice of law or other provision in the Terms, the parties agree and acknowledge that this Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce and that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et. Seq. (‘FAA’), will govern its interpretation and enforcement and proceedings pursuant thereto. It is the intent of the parties to be bound by the provisions of the FAA for all purposes, including, but not limited to, interpretation, implementation, enforcement, and administration of this Arbitration Agreement, and that the FAA and AAA Rules shall preempt all state laws to the fullest extent permitted by law. …”

(Gaddis Dec. Ex. D and K, at Section 2.)

First, the FAA governs the agreement according to the explicit terms. (Gaddis Dec. Ex. D and K, at Section 2.) Uber presents evidence that Plaintiff Gouveia registered for an Uber account on June 8, 2019 and accepted Uber’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement. Gouveia then agreed to Uber’s updated terms on April 10, 2021, September 10, 2022, and March 28, 2023. (Gaddis Dec. ¶¶ 7-12; Ex. A-D.) Uber further presents evidence that Plaintiff Dematos registered for an Uber account on May 17, 2016 and accepted Uber’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement. Dematos then agreed to Uber’s updated terms on March 14, 2021 and January 1, 2022. (Gaddis Dec. ¶¶ 14-23, Ex. H-L.)

Second, the agreement provides that all disputes and claims between Uber and Plaintiffs involving any accidents resulting in personal injury will be resolved by binding arbitration. Therefore, because Uber maintains Plaintiffs were using its services when the accident occurred, Uber has met its burden that the agreement covers the present controversy.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

The Court sets the matter for an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal due to Completion of Arbitration Proceedings for June 7, 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.