Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01743, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01743    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Shatiana Tare Glasper (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on August 3, 2021, she ordered a rideshare vehicle through Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) via its mobile application where she was picked up by Defendant Juan L. Estrada (“Estrada”), who drove her to her destination.  Plaintiff alleges that upon arrival, she proceeded to retrieve her luggage from the trunk, but Estrada accelerated his vehicle while the trunk was open before she could retrieve her luggage.  Plaintiff alleges that Estrada saw Plaintiff signaling him to stop and he abruptly applied his brakes, causing the open trunk to come down and strike Plaintiff.  Plaintiff alleges that she suffered severe injuries, including multiple fractures to her nose. 

The complaint, filed July 31, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) negligence.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On October 25, 2023, Lyft filed a motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiff.   

On January 8, 2024, Lyft filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion, stating that it was not in receipt of an opposition brief from Plaintiff. 

DISCUSSION

            Lyft moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims based on the Terms of Service in the Lyft App. 

Lyft argues that arbitration is proper based on Lyft’s Terms of Service, which Plaintiff affirmatively accepted through the Lyft App on multiple, separate occasions before the subject accident.  Lyft argues that Plaintiff accepted the Terms of Service (and updates thereto), which included an arbitration clause, on May 17, 2017 (September 30, 2016 Terms of Service), December 31, 2019 (August 26, 2019 Terms of Service), January 6, 2021 (December 9, 2020 Terms of Service, which were in effect at the time of the subject accident on August 3, 2021), and on January 19, 2023 (December 12, 2022 Terms of Service).  (Simmons Decl., Exs. 2-8.) 

The December 9, 2020 Lyft Terms of Service states in relevant part at section 17, entitled “DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT”:

YOU AND LYFT MUTUALLY AGREE TO WAIVE OUR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE OR JURY AND AGREE TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY ARBITRATION, as set forth below.  …

Except as expressly provided below, ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US (EACH A “CLAIM” AND COLLECTIVELY, “CLAIMS”) SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION SOLELY BETWEEN YOU AND LYFT. These Claims include, but are not limited to, any dispute, claim or controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, arising out of or relating to: this Agreement and prior version thereof …, the Lyft Platform, the Rideshare Services, … any other goods or services made available through the Lyft Platform, your relationship with Lyft, ….

(Simmons Decl., Ex. 6 at pp.16-23.)  The arbitration clause states that the agreement to arbitration is governed by the FAA, includes the rules governing arbitration, and terms about the arbitration fees and awards.  (12/9/20 Terms of Service, § 17(a), (d), (e).) 

            Plaintiff’s claims are regarding a motor vehicle accident and negligent conduct on the part of Lyft’s driver that caused injuries to Plaintiff while she was removing her luggage from the trunk of a rideshare vehicle.  According to the arbitration clause, claims subject to arbitration include rideshare services, such that Plaintiff’s claims would fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

            The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion.  Thus, Plaintiff has not raised any arguments regarding the enforceability and scope of the arbitration clause, whether she signed the arbitration agreement, or unconscionability.

As such, the Court finds there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate the claims asserted in the complaint and the scope of the arbitration provisions are sufficiently broad to cover the claims in this action between Plaintiff and Lyft.  Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.  Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lyft, Inc. shall proceed to arbitration and the remainder of the claims alleged against Defendant Juan L. Estrada shall be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. 

The Case Management Conference set for February 6, 2024 is taken off-calendar. 

The Court sets a Status Conference re: Status of Arbitration for July 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. 

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: January 19, 2024                                                     ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court