Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV14386, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14386    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

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

            On 4/29/2022, Plaintiff Muhammad Afridi (Plaintiff), representing himself in propria persona, filed a Complaint against Amazon.com, Inc (Defendant).

             On 6/14/2024, Defendant moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and stay proceedings.

Legal Standard

Where the Court has determined that an agreement to arbitrate a controversy exists, the Court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy …unless it determines that…  grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Among the grounds which can support rescission are fraud, duress, and unconscionability. (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239.) The Court may also decline to compel arbitration wherein there is possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 (c).)

Discussion

I.                   Defendants’ Burden

The party moving to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving [the] existence [of an arbitration agreement] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

            Here, Defendants submitted evidence that Plaintiff agreed to the first Terms of Service (TOS) in 2018 when he affirmatively clicked his assent to the agreement as a whole and the arbitration provision in signing up to perform Amazon Flex deliveries. He then agreed to the Second TOS by performing deliveries after he received the terms that included a revised choice of law provision on October 3, 2019. Individualized email notice of a terms of service update suffices to bind a plaintiff to the updated terms when the plaintiff continues to use the service after receiving the notice. (See, e.g., In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig., 185 F.Supp.3d 1155, 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (explaining that “individualized notice” of a terms of service update “in combination with a user’s continued use [of the defendant’s platform] is enough for notice and assent”); Webber v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 18-cv-2491, 2018 WL 10151934, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) (“Courts have found that when consumers receive emails such as this one, continued use of the service of product constitutes assent to the updated terms.”).

Plaintiff received an individualized email notifying him of the change in the terms of service, and thereafter he scheduled and performed deliveries. (Cummings Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.) By continuing to use the Flex App in this way after receiving the email, Plaintiff manifested his agreement to the Second TOS.

Both TOS contained arbitration provisions. Both provisions broadly apply to all claims or disputes that arise out of or relate in any way to Plaintiff’s participation in the Amazon Flex program or performance of services. (First TOS § 11(a); Second TOS § 11(a).) As such, these broad provisions readily cover Plaintiff’s claims in his lawsuit.

Given that Defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement exists, and that Plaintiff’s claims are covered by that agreement, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to establish that the arbitration clause should not be enforced. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236. (Pinnacle).)

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

Moreover, Plaintiff filed a document on 7/5/2024 titled a “Stipulation to Pause Proceedings” which was not signed by Defendant, but which appeared to concede that this matter should be paused for the parties to participate in “neutral driven dispute resolution.”Still, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s filing states that “[i]f the dispute is not resolved in the mandatory dispute resolution, the court may order to proceed the case to trial.” (Stip., 1: 27-28.) Given Plaintiff’s pro per status, the Court takes the opportunity to inform Plaintiff that judicial proceedings are not available as an alternative forum where arbitration is mandatory.

Here, Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, and thus has not met his burden to set forth any basis for not enforcing the underlying arbitration provisions. As such, this case may not proceed to trial and may only be properly resolved in an arbitration setting.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. This action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.