Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV28179, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28179    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 27

Edward Madrid v. Lyft, Inc, et al.

 

Thursday, February 22, 2024

 

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER: 23STCV28179

 

[OPPOSED]

 

Motion – Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings

TENTATIVE

            Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings as to Plaintiff, is GRANTED.

 

Background

            This case commenced after Edward Madrid (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint containing a single cause of action for negligence/negligence per se on November 16, 2023. The Complaint stems from an automobile collision that occurred on July 15, 2022. The collision involved Plaintiff who was riding as a passenger, and the driver Joseph Roque (Roque), who was driving for Lyft, Inc. (Lyft), Steven Dong (Steven), and Trish Dong (Trish). On December 22, 2023, Steven and Trish filed a cross-complaint against Lyft and Roque. On the same day, Roque filed a cross-complaint against Steven and Trish.

 

            The current motion before the Court is Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Motion). The Motion addresses and is targeted at the agreement between Lyft and Plaintiff. An opposition to the Motion was filed by both Steven and Trish. However, Plaintiff files no opposition to the Motion.

 

Discussion

 

Legal Standard

            Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) This is usually done by presenting a copy of the signed, written agreement to the court. “A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim, or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) The moving party must also establish the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) The filing of a lawsuit against the moving party for a controversy clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement affirmatively establishes the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.)

 

Analysis

            The Court will grant the Motion only as between Lyft and Plaintiff because (1) Lyft has established the existence of a written arbitration agreement between Lyft and Plaintiff and (2) Lyft has established Plaintiff’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy.

 

            A valid arbitration agreement exists between Lyft and Plaintiff

            Lyft demonstrates that a valid arbitration agreement exists. In order to use the Lyft platform, a user must create an account and assent to the terms of service. Within the terms of service is an arbitration agreement. (See Exh. 3.) In fact, the very first paragraph advises the reader of the arbitration agreement (the agreement), and in paragraph 17, the agreement is presented in full to the reader. Lyft has produced the agreement by attaching a copy in a concurrently filed evidence packet. Moreover, Lyft has produced a signature log showing that Plaintiff consented to the agreement on multiple occasions, including on January 4, 2023, well after the July 15, 2022 collision at issue.      

 

            Lyft has established Plaintiff’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy

            The second step is to show that Plaintiff refuses to arbitrate the controversy; the filing of the November 16, 2023 Complaint with this Court suffices.

 

            Lyft never requested to arbitrate the controversy with Steven and Trish

            Defendants Steven and Trish Dong (collectively, the Dongs) file an opposition to Lyft’s Motion; however, nowhere in the moving papers is it requested that the controversy between Lyft and the Dongs be arbitrated nor stayed. The Dongs argue that they are not party to the agreement; the moving papers never provided or alleged anything to the contrary.  Granting the Motion and staying the suit with respect to Plaintiff has no effect on the Dongs’ claims against Lyft or any other party.   

 

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings as to Plaintiff, is GRANTED.

  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.  

 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.