Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01958, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01958 Hearing Date: January 2, 2024 Dept: C
Angelina Welsh vs Uber Technologies, Inc., et
al.
Case No.: 23NWCV01958
Hearing Date: January 2, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.
#3
Tentative Ruling
Defendant Uber Technologies,
Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.
This matter is STAYED pending the
outcome of arbitration.
Moving party to give notice.
Background
Plaintiff Angelina Welsh (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
against Defendants Uber Technologies, Raiser, LLC, Raiser-CA, LLC, and Armando
Rojas Diaz alleging negligence caused by a motor vehicle accident when
Plaintiff was being driven by Defendant Diaz.
Defendant Uber now seeks to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate
her claims.
No Opposition filed as of December 29, 2023.
Legal Standard
In
deciding a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first
whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and
then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are covered within
the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118
Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The opposing party has the burden to establish any
defense to enforcement. (Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2007) 152
Cal.App.4th 571, 579 (“The petitioner, T–Mobile here, bears the burden of
proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the opposing party,
plaintiffs here, bears the burden of proving any fact necessary to its
defense.”); Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US),
LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [“The party seeking arbitration bears the
burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party
opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as
unconscionability.”].)
In
California, there is a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration.” (Moncharsh
v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1,
9.) Accordingly, “doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to
be resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy,
Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak St. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323.)
Further, “under both the FAA and California law, ‘arbitration agreements are
valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or
in equity for the revocation of any contract.’” (Higgins v.
Sup. Ct. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.) This policy, however, is
tempered by the recognition that arbitration must be based on an enforceable
contract, as “[t]here is no public policy favoring arbitration of disputes
which the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.” (Engineers &
Architects Assn. v. Community Development Dept. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 644,
653.)
Moreover,
the right to arbitration depends upon contract, and “[t]here is no public
policy favoring arbitration of disputes that the parties have not agreed to
arbitrate.” (Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (2004) 118
Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1229.) There is a “ ‘strong public policy in
favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute
resolution.’ “ (Moncharsh
v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1,
8-9) However,
it is essential to the proper operation of that policy that “ ‘[t]he scope of arbitration
is ... a matter of agreement between the parties' [citation], and ‘ “[t]he powers of an
arbitrator are limited and circumscribed by the agreement or stipulation of
submission.” ‘ [Citations.]”
(Ibid.) An agreement that the FAA governs the parties’ dispute is binding
and enforceable, and thus, that the parties’ agreement is to be read and
interpreted under the FAA. (See Gloster v. Sonic Automotive, Inc. (2014)
2016 Cal.App.4th 438, 446-47.)
Analysis
Plaintiff initially signed up for the Uber App on November
29, 2020, and therein accepted the July 2020 Terms. (Zhang Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibits
A, B.) On or about June 2, 2021, July 11, 2022, and May 14, 2023, Plaintiff
expressly consented to updated Terms by clicking an in-App box which read:
"By checking the box, I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use and
acknowledge the Privacy Notice." (Id. ¶ 9; Exhibits A, C, D.) In
both cases, Defendant attests, a user was not able to ignore these blocking
pop-up screens and use the Uber app without clicking the checkbox and clicking
the "Confirm" button. (Id. at ¶ 12.)
The Terms to which Plaintiff agreed contain sections
separated by headings. The relevant language of the arbitration contained in
Uber's Terms of Use states:
"(a) Agreement to Binding
Arbitration Between You and Uber. Except as expressly provided below in Section
2(b) [relating to small claims, sexual assault/harassment claims and
intellectual property claims, none of which is applicable here], you and Uber
agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or
relating to (i) these Terms and prior versions of these Terms, or the
existence, breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, scope, waiver, or
validity thereof, (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, (iii)
incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in
connection with your use of the Services, whether the dispute, claim or
controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to the
Terms, or (iv) your relationship with Uber, will be settled by binding
arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law. This Agreement
survives after your relationship with Uber ends."
(Zhang Decl., ¶¶ 13, Ex. D.)
The evidence shows that Plaintiff was presented with a
conspicuous arbitration agreement on several occasions, and voluntarily
assented to it. Accordingly, Defendant has shown that there is an arbitration
clause in the relevant contracts that have been signed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's claims must be arbitrated because Plaintiff
agreed to arbitrate any disputes with Uber, regardless of whether the dispute
arose prior to or subsequent to the terms, and because her allegations fall
squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Accordingly, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to
Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.