Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV14394, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14394    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 14

#6

Case Background

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiff alleges Defendant John Doe was an Uber driver who negligently operated his vehicle, causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Santonio Echols filed his Complaint against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier – CA, LLC, and John Doe.

On January 24, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to compel arbitration.

Instant Pleading

Defendants move to compel this matter to arbitration and to dismiss the case or stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration.

Decision

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.

Discussion

Uber alleges that an arbitration agreement exists between Plaintiff and Uber because Plaintiff consented to Uber’s Terms of Use containing an arbitration clause in 2016, 2021, and 2023. Chenshan Yu, a data scientist employed by Uber, testifies that all Uber users must register for an account and agree to Uber’s Terms of Use to use the application. (Yu Decl., ¶6.) Yu located records associated with Plaintiff’s unique identifying number and determined thaet Plaintiff registered for an Uber account in 2015. (Id., ¶8.) In 2016, 2021, and 2023, Plaintiff was presented with an in-app pop-up screen stating Uber updated its terms of use. (Id., ¶¶9-13.) The message included a hyperlink to the Terms of Use published on Uber’s website, as well as a check box next to the words “By checking this box, I have reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and acknowledged the Privacy Notice.” (Id.) Uber’s records show that Plaintiff clicked the check box and tapped the “Confirm” button agreeing to the terms of use most recently in January 2023. (Id., ¶15, Exh. A.)

Under the Arbitration Rules and Governing Law paragraph of the dispute resolution section, the arbitration agreement states “the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C, section 1 et seq. (“FAA”), will govern its interpretation and enforcement and proceedings pursuant thereto.” (Yu Decl., Exh. G.)  Thus, the Federal Arbitration Act governs the motion to compel arbitration. (See Victrola 89, LLC v. Jamon Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346 [finding the FAA governs a motion to compel arbitration when an agreement provides its ‘enforcement’ shall be governed by the FAA].)  Therefore, the Court’s inquiry is limited to a determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration agreement covers the dispute.  (9 U.S.C., section 4;¿Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Systems, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130;¿Howsam¿v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.¿(2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84;¿see¿Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716 [if the finding is affirmative on both counts the FAA requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms].) 

The arbitration agreement reads 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. You and Uber are each waiving your right to a trial by jury. This Arbitration Agreement will preclude you from bringing any class, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative action against Uber, and also preclude you from participating in or recovering relief in any current or future class, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative action brought against Uber by someone else— except as provided below in Section 2(a)(3)(c). Thus, the parties agree that the Arbitrator shall not conduct any form of class, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative arbitration, nor join, coordinate, or consolidate claims of multiple individuals against Uber in a single proceeding—except as provided below in Section 2(a)(3)(c). For the avoidance of doubt, except as provided below in Section 2(a)(3)(c), this Arbitration Agreement precludes you from bringing or participating in any kind of class, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative or other kind of group, multi-plaintiff or joint action against Uber, other than participating in a classwide, collective, coordinated, consolidated, mass and/or representative settlement of claims.

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

(1) Covered Disputes: 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 to you or anyone else that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services (including, but not limited to, your use of the Uber Marketplace Platform or the driver version of the Uber App), 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; and (iv) your relationship with Uber, will be settled by binding individual arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law. This Arbitration Agreement survives after your relationship with Uber ends.”

(Yu Decl., Exh. G.)

Based on the above evidence, the Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between Defendants and Plaintiff. The agreement covers the subject dispute because this action arose from Plaintiff’s use of the Uber application. Additionally, the motion is unopposed. The lack of an opposition operates as a concession that the motion has merit. See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.