Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV00062, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00062    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 09/06/2024     

Case No: 24NNCV00062                                                                                          
Trial Date:  TBD

Case Name:     ANDREW TREVINO vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Moving Party: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC Erroneously Sued As Uber Technologies    

Responding Party: Andrew Trevino

Proof of service timely filed (CRC 3.1300(c)):   ok 

Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013(a)):    ok 

16/+5 day lapse (CCP §1005):  ok  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant Uber Technologies moves the court to compel this case to arbitration.

BACKGROUND:

On March 5, 2024, plaintiff Andrew Trevino filed suit against defendants Uber Technologies Inc (erroneously sued as Uber Technologies; hereinafter Uber) and Xiaozhu (last name unknown). Plaintiff filed a claim for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence based on an accident which took place on June 1, 2022. Plaintiff alleges he was a passenger in an Uber vehicle operated by Xiaozhu. During the ride defendants made an unsafe “U” turn and collided with another vehicle. The collision caused significant damage and injury to plaintiff.

Now Uber moves to compel this case to arbitration. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

RECOMMENDED RULING:

The motion to compel arbitration filed by defendant Uber Technologies Inc (erroneously sued as Uber Technologies) is GRANTED. The arbitrator is ordered to decide the issue of arbitrability and proceed accordingly.

The case against defendant Uber Technologies Inc. is stayed pending arbitration.

ANALYSIS:

Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to grant a petition to compel arbitration ‘if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.’” (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 59.) Accordingly, “when presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the court’s first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute.” (Ibid.)

The moving party bears the initial burden of “producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) The moving party can meet its initial burden by attaching to the motion or petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party’s signature, or by setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion. (Ibid.; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 [‘The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.’].)

“If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. [Citation.] The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement. [Citations].” (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 165-66.)

“If the opposing party meets its burden of producing evidence, then in the third step, the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The burden of proving the agreement by a preponderance of the evidence remains with the moving party.” (Id., at p. 166.) 

Discussion

The first, and ultimately only, issue is whether Uber has satisfied its initial burden of production. It has.

Uber presents the declaration of Chenshan Yu a Data Scientist. Yu’s declaration is comprehensive and sufficient to show an agreement to arbitrate exists. He has the proper background to attest to plaintiff’s use the Uber application and, thus, to the Terms of Use.

Yu declares that he is familiar with Uber’s electronic databases, records, and affiliated data. Based on his experience Yu explains that to utilize the Uber application, users must register for an account and agree to the Terms of Use. Yu declares that “at the time that a user registers for an account and accepts the Terms then in effect, the data related to that user’s registration and consent to the Terms is electronically transmitted to Uber and stored in Uber’s databases. This information is stored in a secure and permission-based manner and cannot be accessed by unauthorized users.” (Yu Decl., ¶6.)

Yu declares he searched the Uber database for plaintiff by searching plaintiff’s email address. This then led Yu to plaintiff’s unique identifying number. Yu declares plaintiff signed-up on March 17, 2021 and in doing so agreed to Uber’s Terms of Use. Yu also declares that on two subsequent occasions—December 20, 2021, and January 1, 2023, respectively—plaintiff consented to two updated terms of service. Plaintiff was prevented from continuing to use the Uber application unless and until he consented to the updated Terms of use. and thereafter continued to use the Uber application. Yu basis this statement on plaintiff’s ride history which spans from 3/16/2021 through 6/10/2024.

The terms in the effect at the time of the incident on June 1, 2022, are the December 16, 2021 terms which state that “[b]y agreeing to the Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in arbitration as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement, and not as a class, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative action.” (Yu Decl., Ex D. at PDF p. 28.)

The January 17, 2023, are similarly worded and provide as follows: “By agreeing to these Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in arbitration as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement, and not as a class, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative action.” (Yu Decl., Ex D. at PDF p. 50.) The January17, 2023 terms provide that they are the new binding agreement between the parties and that they apply “regardless whether the dispute, claim, or controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to these Terms, and regardless whether you allege that the personal injury was experienced by you or anyone else . . .” (Yu Decl., Ex. D at p. 50.) Thus they arguably apply as well.

In either case, Uber has met its prima facie burden that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

A brief note, Uber argues that all issues of arbitrability are to be decided by the arbitrator. Plaintiff, having filed no opposition, does not contest this. The January 2023 agreement provides a delegation clause which states that “[o]nly an arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Arbitration Agreement, including without limitation any claim that all or any part of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable. . .” (Yu Decl., Ex D. at PDF p. 54.) This is a clear delegation clause such that the issue should properly be addressed by the arbitrator. (See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019) 139 S.Ct. 524, 527-28.)