Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV07334, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07334    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action

Defendant Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) moves to compel arbitration of plaintiff Saul Garcia’s claims against it.  Lyft further moves to stay this action against it.

Both the California Arbitration Act and Federal Arbitration Act permit a party to petition to enforce an agreement to arbitrate disputes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; 9. U.S.C. § 2.)  A motion to compel arbitration is “a summary proceeding.”  (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1057.)  The moving party can meet the “initial burden to show an agreement to arbitrate by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party’s signature.”  (Id. at p. 1060.) 

Lyft meets its burden.  It presents evidence that plaintiff agreed to Lyft’s terms of service in its mobile app.  (McCachern Decl., ¶¶ 3-16.)  The terms of service require arbitrating disputes with Lyft.  (Id., Ex. 8, pp. 1, 22-31.)   

Plaintiff gives no basis for the court to deny this motion.  The law favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.)  “ ‘ “[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” ’ ”  (Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 214, 221.)  Plaintiff does not meet his burden.

Disposition

            Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action against it is granted.  The court hereby orders plaintiff Saul Garcia to arbitrate his causes of action against defendant Lyft, Inc. in compliance with Lyft, Inc.’s terms of service.  The court hereby stays the action as against defendant Lyft, Inc.