Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 23SMCV00874, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00874    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 205

Background

            On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff HANNAH BOHLAND (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant LYFT, INC. (“Defendant”), alleging two causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence based on an auto accident that occurred on or about January 18, 2023.

            On June 16, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. No opposition has been filed. On, July 14, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.

Motion to Compel Arbitration Standard

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.¿(Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) A party moving to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and the party opposing the petition has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-357.)

“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.” (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs all agreements to arbitrate in contracts involving interstate commerce. (9 U.S.C. § 2, et seq.; Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)  

Analysis

            Governing Procedural Rules

Defendant contends that this motion to compel arbitration is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). But, for the procedural provisions of the FAA to govern this motion, the subject arbitration agreement would have to have expressly incorporated the procedural provisions of the FAA into it. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2021) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 345 [“[T]he FAA's procedural provisions (9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, 10, 11) do not apply unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them.”] [italics in original; internal citations and quotation marks omitted].) The subject arbitration agreement submitted by Defendant does not expressly incorporate the procedural provisions of the FAA or any other law. (Simmons Decl., Ex. 3, § 17.) Accordingly, the California Arbitration Act applies as the default procedural provisions here. (Victrola 89, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 345.)

            Existence of Valid Arbitration Agreement

The initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement falls on Defendant. Defendant has presented a copy of its terms of service that Plaintiff affirmatively accepted on two separate occasions, including on January 18, 2023, the same date of the subject accident underlying this lawsuit. (Simmons Decl., ¶¶ 12-13, Exs. 2, 3.) Section 17 of those terms of service state, in part, as follows:

“YOU AND LYFT MUTUALLY AGREE TO WAIVE OUR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE OR JURY AND AGREE TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY ARBITRATION, as set forth below. This agreement to arbitrate (‘Arbitration Agreement’) is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’); but if the FAA is inapplicable for any reason, then this Arbitration Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Delaware, including Del. Code tit. 10, § 5701 et seq., without regard to choice of law principles.”

(Simmons Decl., Ex. 3, § 17.)

            The Court finds that Defendant has met its initial burden of establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement between itself and Plaintiff. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to challenge the validity of the subject arbitration agreement.

            Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and thereby has failed to challenge the validity of the subject arbitration agreement.

            Covered Claims

            The only other remaining question here is whether the subject arbitration agreement covers Plaintiff’s claims. The subject arbitration agreement further provides, in part, as follows:

“Except as expressly provided below, ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US (EACH A ‘CLAIM’ AND COLLECTIVELY, ‘CLAIMS’) SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION SOLELY BETWEEN YOU AND LYFT. These Claims include, but are not limited to, any dispute, claim or controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, arising out of or relating to: this Agreement and prior versions thereof (including the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof), the Lyft Platform, the Rideshare Services…”

(Simmons Decl., Ex. 3, § 17.)

            The Court finds these terms sufficiently broad to encompass Plaintiff’s claims in this action. Also, given the lack of opposition by Plaintiff to this motion, the Court finds Defendant has sufficiently proven it is entitled to compelling arbitration of this action.

            Therefore, the Court will grant the motion.

Conclusion

            The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings. This matter is stayed pending arbitration.

            Defendant to give notice.

Dated:  July 21, 2023

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court