Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC460381, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 25, 2022

Case Name: Rodas v. DoorDash, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV06206

Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant DoorDash, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff Rossana Rodas filed the operative Complaint against Defendant DoorDash, Inc. for (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to provide meal breaks, (4) failure to permit rest periods, (5) failure to indemnify for employee expenses/losses, (6) failure to pay final wages, and (6) violations of the UCL.

Defendant DoorDash, Inc. seeks to compel arbitration on the basis of an independent contractor agreement executed by Plaintiff that has an arbitration provision.  Defendant contends this arbitration provision encompasses Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff did not submit an opposition.

The arbitration provision at issue is as follows: “CONTRACTOR and DOORDASH mutually agree to this Mutual Arbitration Provision, which is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) (‘FAA’) and shall apply to any and all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement, CONTRACTOR’s classification as an independent contractor, CONTRACTOR’s provision of Contracted Services to consumers, restaurants, or other businesses, the payments received by CONTRACTOR for providing services to consumers, restaurants, or other businesses, the termination of this Agreement, and all other aspects of CONTRACTOR's relationship with DOORDASH, past, present or future, whether arising under federal, state or local statutory and/or common law[.]”  

The agreement also contains a delegation clause.  Parties to an arbitration agreement may agree to delegate to the arbitrator, instead of a court, questions regarding the enforceability of the agreement.” (Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 239.)   “There are two prerequisites for a delegation clause to be effective. First, the language of the clause must be clear and unmistakable. [Citation.] Second, the delegation must not be revocable under state contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.”  (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 880, 891-892.)  

Here, there is no objection that the subject delegation clause is invalid.  Further, the language of the delegation clause is clear and unmistakable: “All other disputes with respect to whether this Mutual Arbitration Provision is unenforceable, unconscionable, applicable, valid, void or voidable shall be determined exclusively by an arbitrator, and not by any court.” 

Thus, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.  The arbitrator is to determine arbitrability.  This action is stayed pending the resolution of arbitration.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.