Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV01831, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01831, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01831 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Akman v. Kim, Case no. 24SMCV01831

Hearing date March 10, 2025

Defendant Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Akman sues defendants Kim, Uber Technologies, Inc., C. Ceron and M. Ceron for injuries sustained when the Uber he was riding in, driven by defendant Kim, was involved in a motor-vehicle accident. Uber moves to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss.

California public policy strongly favors arbitration as an efficient alternative to litigation. Code Civ. Proc. §1280 et seq., Madden v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 706. Under the CAA, where there is a valid written agreement to arbitrate, arbitration is mandatory. Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2. The opposing party bears the burden of proving any defense to arbitrability, including unconscionability or applicability of the EFAA. See Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n. v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236. “[T]he doctrine of unconscionability has both a procedural and substantive element, the former focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on overly harsh or one-sided results.” See Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 899, 910.

Plaintiff signed up for an Uber account 8/25/16 and agreed to the operative terms of service at the time, the 1/2/16 terms of service, which included an arbitration agreement requiring both parties to submit any disputes or claims arising from the use of Uber services to arbitration. Yu Decl., exh. A-C. Plaintiff agreed to updated terms on 11/15/16, 3/5/21, 6/23/21 and 12/30/21. Yu Decl., paras. 8, 11; exh. D.

Plaintiff does not dispute agreeing to the terms of service but argues he did not know he was agreeing to arbitrate and asserts he was not given the option to refuse. Decl. Akman paras. 2, 5. Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement is an adhesion agreement and unconscionable, rendering it unenforceable. Plaintiff argues he was deprived of meaningful choice.

Procedural unconscionability may be proven by showing oppression, which is present when a party has no meaningful opportunity to negotiate terms, or the contract is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Wherry v. Award Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1242.

Plaintiff was not required to use Uber’s services and had other transportation options, such as public transport, a private vehicle or other ride-share applications. See Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1245 (holding the availability of alternative sources from which to obtain the desired service defeats any claim of oppression, because the consumer has a meaningful choice).

Substantive unconscionability is present when a term is so one-sided as to shock the conscience of a reasonable person. Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2021) 55 Cal.App.4th 223, 246. In assessing substantive unconscionability, the “paramount consideration” is mutuality of the obligation to arbitrate. Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1287.

Uber’s arbitration agreement applies to both parties and incorporates the FAA rules. See Decl. Yu exh. H. Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement favors Uber by denying plaintiff his right to a jury trial. This is unavailing; the terms equally bind Uber and plaintiff and require both to submit claims to arbitration. No evidence of substantive unconscionability is presented.

Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement cannot cover the liability claim, as said claim arise from Kim’s alleged negligence, not plaintiff’s use of Uber. This is unavailing. But for plaintiff’s use of Uber, plaintiff would not have been in the car driven by Kim. All plaintiff’s claims against both Kim and Uber arise from the use of Uber.

The parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement, and the claims for negligence and vicarious liability against Uber and Kim fall under the scope of the agreement, which cover all claims arising from Uber’s services. See Decl. Yu para. 15; exh. H. GRANTED.