Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV04034, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV04034, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV04034 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: C

BHAMBA v. DOORDASH, INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV04034

HEARING: 07/18/24

Defendant DOORDASH, INC.’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to Plaintiff and DOORDASH, INC. The entire action is STAYED until conclusion of the arbitration.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of July 15, 2024.

This action for assault and battery was filed by Plaintiff MANISH BHAMBA against Defendants DOORDASH, INC. (“Doordash”) and TRAMELLE LALMORE WILLIAMS (“Williams”) on December 11, 2023.

Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about December 13, 2021, Defendant WILLIAMS assaulted and battered Plaintiff BHAMBA while Defendant WILLIAMS was in the scope and course of employment with Defendant DOORDASH.” (Complaint ¶8.) “The assault and battery occurred outside of the Red Robin restaurant located at 112 Lakewood Center, Lakewood, California, 90712.” (Complaint ¶9.) “Plaintiff Bhamba was also at the Red Robin restaurant to pick up a DoorDash order.” (Complaint ¶11.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Assault and Battery;

(2) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training; and

(3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

All three claims are alleged against each defendant.

Defendant Doordash moves to compel arbitration pursuant to a written agreement to arbitrate between Doordash and Plaintiff.

Except for specifically enumerated exceptions, the court must order the petitioner and respondent to arbitrate a controversy if the court finds that a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists. (See CCP §1281.2.) “In California, [g]eneral principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate.” (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.) “A petition to compel arbitration or stay proceedings pursuant to CCP §§1281.1 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.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1330.)

The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination. (Engalia v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951.)

The Court finds that Doordash has met the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Doordash. The Updated Independent Contractor Agreement states: “CONTRACTOR and DOORDASH mutually agree to this Mutual Arbitration Provision… and shall apply to any and all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement….Any disputes in this regard shall be resolved exclusively by an arbitrator.” (Nachazel Decl., ¶14, Ex. C.)

As of July 15, 2024, no Opposition has been filed. The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and because there is no Opposition, the motion to compel arbitration between Plaintiff and Doordash is GRANTED.

Pursuant to CCP §1281.2(c) and (d): “[T]he court (1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement and may order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action or special proceeding; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding…” when “[a] party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (emphasis added.)

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the Motion, and order arbitration of the dispute as to the Plaintiff and Defendant Doordash only. However, the entire case will be STAYED until conclusion of the arbitration.