Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV25720, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25720    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Bird Rides, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Having considered the moving and stipulating papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff Shacaree Sears (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Bird Rides, Inc. (“Defendant”) for general negligence and products liability.

On October 17, 2022, Defendant filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration to be heard on December 13, 2022. On December 17, 2022, parties filed a stipulation.

Trial is currently set for February 6, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Parties stipulated to arbitration.

LEGAL STANDARD

A petition to compel arbitration must allege both (1) a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and (2) that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The Court shall grant the petition unless the petitioner waived the right to compel arbitration, or other grounds exist for rescission of the agreement. (Id.) 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4, subdivision (b) requires a petition to compel arbitration under § 1281.2 to be served on the parties as provided in their arbitration agreement or, if no method was agreed to, in the same manner required for service of summons, if the party to be served has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928.)

Under California law, an arbitration agreement must be in some measure both procedurally and substantively unconscionable in order for the agreement to be unenforceable. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.) “But they need not be present in the same degree. . . . [T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.” (Id.)

Procedural unconscionability focuses on two factors: oppression and surprise. (A & M Produce Co. v.  FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 437, 486.) Oppression is an “inequality of bargaining power which results in no real negotiation and ‘an absence of meaningful choice.’” (Id.) Surprise involves the extent to which the agreed upon terms are hidden away “by the party seeking to enforce the disputed terms.” (Id.)

Substantive unconscionability does not have a precise definition, but generally a contract is found to be “substantively suspect if it reallocates the risks of the bargain in an objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner.” (Id. at 487.)

DISCUSSION

Parties filed a stipulation, agreeing to submit to confidential arbitration pursuant to the Bird Rental Agreement. Parties agreed to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration, and upon the rendering of any award by an arbitrator, Plaintiff will dismiss this action. The Court grants the stipulation, making this motion moot.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Bird Rides, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is MOOT. The Court grants the stipulation. 

All future dates are advanced and vacated.  The Court sets a hearing as to the status of the Arbitration on June 15, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.