Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV05403, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05403    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Chase v. Airbnb, Case no. 24SMCV05403

Hearing date April 17, 2025

Defendant Airbnb’s Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Chase

Cross-Defendant Airbnb’s Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Cross-Complainants Melrose/Ghatan

Plaintiff Chase sues defendants Airbnb, Inc., Melrose Sweetzer, LLC and Ghatan, alleging habitability, nuisance, negligence and breach of contract claims arising out of an apartment owned by Melrose and Ghatan and leased by plaintiff on the Airbnb site.

Airbnb moves to compel arbitration under the FAA. The motion is unopposed.

Melrose and Ghatan cross-complain against Airbnb and an unnamed Airbnb host for equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief. Airbnb moves to compel arbitration under the FAA. Cross-complainants oppose the motion.

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. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) codifies a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, making an arbitration agreement in the TOS “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract…” 9 U.S.C. §2. “Courts must ‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms…” Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest. (2013) 570 U.S. 228, 233.

Defendant Airbnb’s Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff

Plaintiff created an Airbnb account; the terms of service contained an arbitration agreement: “You and Airbnb mutually agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms or the applicability, breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation thereof, or any use of the Airbnb Platform.” Decl. McDowell exh. E, para. 23.4. Plaintiff created her Airbnb account 4/7/22. Decl. McDowell para. 9; exhs. A-B. Consenting to the terms of service, including the arbitration agreement, is required to use the Airbnb platform. Decl. McDowell para. 11. A binding arbitration agreement exists.

Plaintiff reserved the stay via Airbnb. Compl. paras. 9, 15. The claims arise from use of the Airbnb platform and fall under the arbitration agreement. The motion is unopposed. GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are stayed pending arbitration.

Cross-Defendant Airbnb’s Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Cross-Complainants

Ghatan created an Airbnb account 3/9/11. Decl. McDowell para. 11; exhs. A-B. Ghatan consented to the terms of service, including an arbitration agreement. See Decl. McDowell paras. 12-13, 15; exhs. A-D. The agreement contains the same language as above. The agreement also states: “If there is a dispute about whether this Arbitration Agreement can be enforced or applies to our Dispute, you and Airbnb agree that the arbitrator will decide that issue.” Decl. McDowell exh. D, para. 23.4. Airbnb argues Ghatan managing member of Melrose, thus binding both Ghatan and Melrose to the agreement.

Cross-complainants acknowledge existence of Ghatan’s Airbnb account and the arbitration agreement but argue the arbitration agreement is inapplicable. Opp. 2:22-25. Cross-complainants assert the apartment plaintiff reserved was not listed on Airbnb by cross-complainants, but by the unidentified Airbnb host named in the cross-complaint. Cross-complainants further assert they are not party to the arbitration agreement between Airbnb and plaintiff. Cross-defendants argue no nexus connects Ghatan’s arbitration agreement with Airbnb and plaintiff’s underlying claims, as Ghatan was not the individual who listed the apartment on Airbnb. A binding arbitration agreement exists between the parties. At issue is whether the cross-complaint, arising from plaintiff’s claims, is a matter to which the agreement applies.

The agreement between Ghatan and Airbnb states disputes as to the applicability of the agreement are a question for the arbitrator. See Decl. McDowell exh. D, para. 23.4. The agreement states it applies to “any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to… any use of the Airbnb Platform.” Id. The United States Supreme Court has held where an arbitration clause delegates questions of applicability to the arbitrator, the court should stay the case and refer to the matter to arbitration, irrespective of its view of the merits. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019) 139 S. Ct. 524, 530 (quoting First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944.)

Whether cross-complainants’ claims fall under the arbitration agreement is a question for the arbitrator. Airbnb’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Cross-complainants’ claims are stayed pending the arbitrator’s determination.