Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV44016, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44016    Hearing Date: August 4, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 4, 2023                                   TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                                Neelanjan Chanda v. Fuan Lin, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV44016

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Uber, Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff, Neelanjan Chanda, filed this action against Defendants, Fuan Lin, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier-PA, LLC, Rasier-DC, LLC, and Arnold Diaz, for injuries Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle collision with an Uber driver on December 6, 2019.

            On July 7, 2023, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC (hereinafter, “Defendants”) filed this motion to compel arbitration. 

            On July 28, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition to the motion.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS 

            “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2, subds. (a), (b).)  Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court’s inquiry is limited to a determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration agreement covers the dispute.  (9 U.S.C., § 4;¿Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Systems, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130;¿Howsam¿v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.¿(2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84;¿see¿Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716 [if the finding is affirmative on both counts the FAA requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms].)  If a clause delegating enforcement under the FAA exists, the court may only adjudicate the enforceability of the delegation clause itself; if found enforceable, questions regarding the enforceability of the underlying agreement as a whole is reserved for the arbitrator.  (Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 72.)  In order for a delegation clause to be enforceable, there must be a showing that the parties “clearly and mistakably agreed that an arbitrator, not a court, would decide the question of enforceability.”  (Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1442.) This showing is fulfilled if the arbitration agreement provides that its “enforcement” shall be governed by the FAA.  (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Props. 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355-356.) 

            “If an application has been made to a court . . . for an order to arbitrate a controversy . . . the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) 

            A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c).) 

III.       DISCUSSION 

            Defendants submit the declaration of Todd Gaddis (“Gaddis”), who is employed as Uber’s Data Science Manager.  Gaddis authenticates Uber’s business records which reflect that Plaintiff agreed to terms of use which included an arbitration agreement.  (Gaddis Decl., Exs. A-F.)  The Court finds that Defendants have met their preliminary burden to demonstrate that an arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants exists.  As Plaintiff did not oppose the motion or show how the agreement is unenforceable, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.  

IV.       CONCLUSION        

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.  The cased is STAYED pending arbitration.  The Court sets a Status Conference re: Arbitration for February 5, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 4, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.