Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV02303, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02303    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Mia Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Bird Rides, Inc. (“Defendant”) stemming from alleged personal injuries suffered when Plaintiff was operating an electric scooter she rented from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges the controls and brakes of the scooter malfunctioned, causing her to hit a curb and be ejected from the scooter. Defendant brings this motion to compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration. Defendant’s motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Under both the Title 9 section 2 of the United States Code (known as the Federal Arbitration Act) and the Title 9 of Part III of the California Code of Civil Procedure commencing at section 1281 (known as the California Arbitration Act, hereinafter “CAA”), arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds which exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 permits a party to file a motion to request the Court order the parties to arbitrate a controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, the Court must grant the motion “if the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists”, unless one of four limited exceptions apply. (Ibid.)  The statutory exceptions arise where: (a) the right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; (b) grounds exist for rescission of the agreement; (c) pending litigation with a third party creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on common factual or legal issues; or (d) the petitioner is a state or federally chartered depository institution seeking to compel arbitration pursuant to a contract whose agreement was induced by fraud or without respondent’s consent. (Ibid.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, the party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of demonstration “that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  “With respect to the moving party’s burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court.” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160 [emphasis in original].) “Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges.” (Ibid.; see also Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [“The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability”].)

Section 1281.2 “was intended primarily to prevent conflicting rulings resulting from arbitration proceedings and other related litigation arising out of the same transaction.” (Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 479, 488.) In enacting section 1281.2 “the Legislature has … authorized trial courts to refuse enforcement of an arbitration agreement where, as here, there is a possibility of conflicting rulings” (C.V. Starr & Co. v. Boston Reinsurance Corp. (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 1637, 1642.) “[T]he presence of a nonarbitrable cause of action is not sufficient by itself to invoke the trial court’s discretion to deny arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c).” (Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1409.) “The mere fact that some claims are arbitrable and some are not is surely not the ‘peculiar situation’ meant to be addressed by section 1281.2(c).” (RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1521.)

For section 1281.2(c) to apply, “[a] party to the arbitration agreement” must also be “a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions” and there must be “a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (§ 1281.2(c), italics added.) For purposes of section 1281.2(c), a third party is a party who is not bound by the arbitration agreement. (See, e.g., id. at 1521.) “[C]ourts have routinely relied on the allegations contained in the operative pleading to determine whether there is the possibility of conflicting rulings within the meaning of section 1281.2, subdivision (c).” (Abaya v. Spanish Ranch I, L.P. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1499 [citations omitted].)

Analysis

Defendant Bird Rides indicates its users must agree to the Bird Rental Agreement, Waiver of Liability and Release (“Rental Agreement”) to sign up for its service and use a scooter. (Grubb Decl. ¶¶7-15.) It is “technologically impossible” for a person to complete the signup process and ride a Bird scooter without agreeing to the Rental Agreement. (Id. at ¶15.) The Rental Agreement contains an arbitration provision which provides, in pertinent part:

If the parties do not reach an agreed upon solution through the support process, then either party may initiate binding arbitration as the sole means to resolve claims, subject to the terms set forth below. Specifically, all claims arising out of or relating to use and rental of a Vehicle, this Agreement, and the parties’ relationship with each other shall be finally settled by binding arbitration administered. The substantive law of the State of California shall govern the underlying dispute, but the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of all provisions of this Agreement pertaining to arbitration (Sections 9.1 to 9.7). The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS, or alternatively a mutually agreed upon arbitrator or arbitration service, under the applicable commercial arbitration rules for JAMS or the mutually agreed upon arbitration service, excluding any rules or procedures governing or permitting class actions.

The arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve all disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement, including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement are void or voidable, or whether a claim is subject to arbitration. The arbitrator shall be empowered to grant whatever relief would be available in a court under law or in equity. The arbitrator’s award shall be written, and binding on the parties and may be entered as a judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(Ex. A to Grubb Decl. at § 9.2.) Defendant demonstrates Plaintiff agreed to the Rental Agreement and has never opted out of it. (Grubb Decl. at ¶¶20-22.)

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has carried its burden to demonstrate the existence of an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant covering all the claims asserted against it.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion, and thus has not carried the burden shifted to her to show the agreement is void or unenforceable, or otherwise provide the Court with any basis to refuse Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against Defendant and stay this litigation pending the resolution of those arbitration proceedings. The Court thus GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action will be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings.