Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20476, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20476    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff Darneika Watson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Robert Mossesian (“Mossesian”), Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On October 31, 2022, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, and Uber filed an answer. 

On November 18, 2022, Mossesian filed an answer. On February 22, 2023, Mossessian filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Jasmin Leon (“Leon”) for indemnity, comparative contribution, declaratory relief, negligence and negligence per se. On April 3, 2023, Leon filed an answer. 

On August 16, 2023, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, and Uber (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to compel arbitration to be heard on September 12, 2023.  

On September 12, 2023, Moving Defendants’ counsel informed the Court that he inadvertently failed to serve the motion on Plaintiff’s counsel.  The Court continued the hearing to November 22, 2023. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

Trial is currently scheduled for April 17, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUEST 

Moving Defendants request that the Court compel arbitration. 

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

On or around August 11, 2016, Plaintiff registered as a rider through the Uber App. (Gaddis Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. A.) As part of this registration process, Plaintiff agreed to be bound by Uber’s January 2016 terms, access to which was prominently displayed during the registration process.  The terms contained an arbitration agreement.  (Ex. B.)  On November 16, 2016, Uber sent Plaintiff an email labeled “We’ve Updated Our Terms of Use,” providing notice of an update to the terms of use.  The e-mail contained the November 2016 terms of use, which also contained an arbitration agreement.  (Ex. C, D, E.)  On January 30, 2021, and January 6, 2022, Plaintiff was presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen with the header “We’ve updated our terms.”  It stated, in large type, “We encourage you to read our Updated Terms in Full,” and contained hyperlinks to the Terms of Use and Privacy Notice in the pop-up.  (Gaddis Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.)  Plaintiff clicked the checkbox all four times, consenting to the terms and conditions. (Gaddis Decl. ¶¶ 12-16.) These terms of use required Plaintiff to resolve applicable claims against Moving Defendants in arbitration and to waive her right to a jury trial.  (Ex. G.) Applicable claims included “any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof or the use of the Service or Application,” regardless of the date of accrual. 

On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that on November 24, 2021, she was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as an Uber passenger in an Uber vehicle driven by Mossessian.  The filing of the complaint “invoked the protections and procedures of the court system, and thus was an effective refusal of arbitration” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2.  (Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 574.) 

Moving Defendants have presented evidence of (1) a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, and (2) a party to the agreement’s refusal to arbitrate. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  Plaintiff has presented no evidence showing the agreement is unenforceable.  The Court grants the motion and orders Plaintiff's claims against the Moving Defendants stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC.  Plaintiff is ordered to arbitrate her claims against Defendants Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, and Uber Technologies, Inc.  The Court stays Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, and Uber Technologies, Inc. pending the outcome of arbitration. 

The Court sets a Post-Arbitration Status Conference on March 4, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.   

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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