Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV42559, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42559    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On November 18, 2021, Plaintiffs Danielle Burton and Medford Wilson  filed this action against Defendants Grigor Karagezian (“Karagezian”), Lyft Corporation, and Does 1-50 for negligence. 

On June 28, 2023, Karagezian filed an answer. 

On November 30, 2023, Lyft, Inc., erroneously sued and served as Lyft Corporation (“Lyft”), filed an answer. 

On December 6, 2023, Lyft filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings to be heard on February 16, 2024.  Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Lyft asks the Court to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ action and stay proceedings. 

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.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides in part: 

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: 

“(a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or 

“(b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement." 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b).) 

“Arbitration is a favored procedure. An ‘ “ ‘arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.’ ” ’ ” (Salgado v. Carrows Restaurants, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 356, 360, quoting Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 390, 397.) “Doubts about the applicability of the arbitration clause to the dispute should be resolved ‘in favor of sending the parties to arbitration.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 642.) 

DISCUSSION         

Lyft has filed a petition alleging (1) the existence of written agreements to arbitrate a controversy between Lyft and each of the Plaintiffs and (2) the Plaintiffs refuse to arbitrate the controversy.  The Court has seen no evidence that Lyft waived its right to compel arbitration or that grounds exist for rescission of the agreements to arbitrate. 

The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and orders Plaintiffs Danielle Burton and Medford Wilson to arbitrate their claims against Defendant Lyft, Inc.  The Court stays the action against Lyft, Inc. 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.