Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV36758, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36758    Hearing Date: August 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On October 6, 2021, Plaintiffs Jorge Quiroa (“Quiroa”) and Celia Cordova (“Cordova”) filed this action against Defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Nicole Laguna ("Laguna"), and John Doe for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

On April 25, 2023, Lyft filed an answer. On June 22, 2023, Laguna filed an answer. 

On July 14, 2023, Lyft filed a motion to compel arbitration to be heard on August 10, 2023.  On August 3, 2023, Lyft filed a notice of non-opposition. 

No trial date is currently set. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Lyft request that the Court compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the rescission of any contract.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.)

A petition to compel arbitration must allege both (1) a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and (2) that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) 

DISCUSSION 

Lyft asserts the following:

On June 9, 2017, Quiroa created a user account through the Lyft app. As part of the registration process, Quiroa accepted Lyft’s Terms of Service, dated September 30, 2016. Since then, Quiroa accepted Lyft’s Terms of Service on two occasions before the subject incident. 

Lyft has recorded two instances of Cordova accepting Lyft’s Terms of Service, both before the subject incident. Cordova agreed to be bound by the October 15, 2016, and August 26, 2019, updates to the Terms of Service. The August 2019 update contained an email with a “pink hyperlink of full text” to the Terms of Service and stated that the terms of service would be updated for all users. (Ex. 4.) These terms of service stated that the arbitration provisions apply to any dispute, past, present or future, and “appl[y] to all claims between [Cordova] and Lyft...arising out of or relating to...the Lyft Platform” except as otherwise indicated. (Ex. 5.) None of the limitations apply here. Cordova accepted the terms and continued to use the Lyft app. 

Lyft updated its terms of service on December 9, 2020, after the accident. Quiroa accepted the updated terms on March 14, 2021. The full text of the Terms of Service, including the arbitration provision, was on the screen in the Lyft App. Quiroa was required to scroll through the Lyft Terms of Service and press a button indicating he consented to the terms of service. The terms of service stated that the arbitration provisions apply to any dispute, past, present or future, and “appl[y] to all claims between [Quiroa] and Lyft...arising out of or relating to...the Lyft Platform...” except as otherwise indicated. (Ex. 9.) None of the limitations apply here. Quiroa accepted the terms and continued to use the Lyft app. 

Plaintiffs allege they were injured in an accident on October 26, 2019. Cordova had accessed the Lyft app. 

Plaintiffs have refused to arbitrate their claims. 

Lyft has satisfied the requirements for a motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff have not filed an opposition to the motion.  The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lyft Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs are ordered to arbitrate their claims against Lyft. The action against Lyft is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.