Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02555, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02555    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Adriana Alvarado (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 8, 2023, she was a passenger in Defendant Ernie “Doe’s” white GMC Terrain vehicle, which she hired through Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) ride-share app.  Plaintiff alleges that Ernie Doe drove dangerously, recklessly, and without regard for her safety by running several red lights and driving at excessive speeds.  Plaintiff believes that Ernie Doe was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol.  Plaintiff alleges that while she was being driven by Ernie Doe, Ernie Doe’s vehicle collided with the rear of another vehicle.

The complaint, filed October 31, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; (2) general negligence; (3) common carrier negligence; and (4) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On February 13, 2024, Lyft filed a motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiff.   

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition stating that she does not object to the Court entering an order compelling the parties to arbitrate the case.   

DISCUSSION

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

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 November 5, 2016 (September 30, 2016 Terms of Service), November 3, 2019 (August 26, 2019 Terms of Service), April 18, 2021 (December 9, 2020 Terms of Service), and on February 4, 2023 (December 12, 2022 Terms of Service, which were in effect at the time of the subject accident on September 8, 2023).  (McCachern Decl., ¶¶12-15; Mot. Exhibits at Exs. 2-8.) 

The December 12, 2022 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, ….

(Mot. Exhibits, Ex. 8 [12/12/22 Terms of Service] at pp. 22-31.)  The arbitration clause states that the agreement to arbitrate is governed by the FAA, includes the rules governing arbitration, and has terms about arbitration fees and awards.  (12/12/22 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 riding in a Lyft/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.

            In her notice of non-opposition, Plaintiff states that she does not object to the Court issuing an order to compel the parties to arbitration.  She states that she offered to enter into a stipulation to arbitrate her claims against Lyft, but Lyft’s proposed stipulation was overbroad and did not preserve her right to arbitrate her claims against Lyft.  (Non-Opp. at Exs. A-B.)  As Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, the matter will proceed to arbitration.  There is no objection by Plaintiff regarding the enforceability and scope of the arbitration clause, whether she signed the arbitration agreement, or unconscionability.

Accordingly, 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.  Thus, 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 Ernie “Doe” shall be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. 

The Case Management Conference set for March 15, 2024 is taken off-calendar. 

The Court sets a Status Conference re: Status of Arbitration for September 18, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. 

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 15, 2024                                                       ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court