Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01287, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01287    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     October 18, 2023                                            TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         ISAAC BENAVIDEZ v. KHACHIK ARUTYUNYAN, LYFT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01287

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Lyft, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed September 14, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Lyft moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Isaac Benavidez to submit this case to binding arbitration.

BACKGROUND

             Plaintiff Isaac Benavidez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Khachik Arutyunyan caused a motor accident while acting as an employee for Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on June 6, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

            This case is ordered STAYED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

LEGAL STANDARD

“California and federal law both favor enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.” (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 889.) “A party who files a motion to compel arbitration ‘bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.’’ (Cisnero Alverez v. Altamed Health Services Corporation (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 572, 580.)

DISCUSSION

            Lyft moves to compel arbitration. Lyft argues that Plaintiff has repeatedly signed its terms of service. (Simmons Decl. ¶ 11.) Lyft provides that Plaintiff had used its application to purchase the rideshare that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Id. ¶ 12.) The arbitration agreement at issue provides, in part: “All disputes and claims between us . . . shall be exclusively resolved by binding arbitration solely between you and Lyft.” (Exhibit 5 at p. 17.) This arbitration provision was found in Lyft’s terms of service that Plaintiff affirmatively accepted on December 9, 2020. (Simmons Decl. ¶ 11c.)

            “ ‘[W]hen a petition to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable. Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement ... that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.’ ” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1057.)

            Lyft has demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement exists. Plaintiff agreed to Lyft’s terms of service, utilized Lyft’s application to purchase a rideshare, and was using a rideshare at the time of the alleged incident. Plaintiff does not submit an opposition.

            Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.

CONCLUSION

            Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

            Case management conference scheduled for November 8, 2023 is taken off calendar.

            This case is ordered STAYED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

            The court set a status hearing regarding arbitration on June 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   October 18, 2023                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org