Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV03631, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03631    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Vaatete v. Lyft, Inc. et al., Case No. 23SMCV03631

Hearing Date November 3, 2023

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Vaatete arranged for a ride with defendant Lyft and alleges defendant Lyft driver Santoro struck her with his vehicle. Lyft moves to compel arbitration.

Maintaining a Lyft user account requires accepting Lyft’s terms of service (TOS) and subsequent updates. Vaatete had a Lyft account and accepted updated terms of service on December 9, 2020 (before the incident) and January 4, 2023 (after the incident). McCachern decl. ¶12. Each version of the TOS includes a clause requiring arbitration of “any dispute, claim, or controversy based on past, present, or future events arising out of or relating to ... the Lyft Platform[.]” Id. The agreement states it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Id., Exhs. 3, 5, 7 & 9.

Lyft argues the claim “aris[es] from or relating to the Lyft platform,” plaintiff accepted the TOS, including the arbitration clause, so the matter should be referred to arbitration. Vaatete argues she did not assent to the arbitration agreement because the TOS are not displayed during account creation or when the TOS are updated.

Lyft users are provided a link to the 38-page TOS, which they may review (or not). Lyft states the TOS could be reviewed by scrolling down, rather than clicking on a link. Regardless, plaintiff does not dispute she agreed to the TOS and had the opportunity to review them before accepting. Federal courts applying California law have deemed the process by which Lyft users assent to the TOS to be valid. E.g., Osvatics v. Lyft, Inc. (D.D.C. 2021) 535 F.Supp.3d 1, 11; Loewen v. Lyft, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 129 F.Supp.3d 945, 966. The court finds plaintiff did assent to the TOS, including the arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff next argues the arbitration agreement does not cover her claims because she was a pedestrian, not a passenger, when the accident occurred. The arbitration agreement contains a delegation clause, stating “disputes about scope, applicability, enforceability, revocability or validity of the arbitration agreement” will be decided by the arbitrator. Lyft exh. 9. The Supreme Court held delegation clauses in arbitration agreements are enforceable. Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 70.

Plaintiff’s claim that the nature of the accident places it outside the arbitration agreement is one of scope of the agreement. Under the delegation clause, it is to be decided by the arbitrator. The same is true of her unconscionability arguments, since they raise a dispute about the arbitration agreement’s enforceability or validity. Plaintiff’s opposition does not address the delegation clause.

Finally, plaintiff argues the matter should not be arbitrated due to the risk of inconsistent rulings in the litigation against defendant Santoro (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1281.4). The Supreme Court held that under the FAA, which governs here, “an arbitration agreement must be enforced notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the dispute but not the arbitration agreement.” Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 20. Since the parties agree the FAA governs, Moses H. Cone controls. GRANTED.