Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00034016-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00034016-CU-PA-CTL PRINCE VS JABAAR [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Uber Technologies Inc.'s motion to compel Plaintiffs Tori Prince and Lauren Watson to arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendant Ali Jabaar's joinder to the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

Uber 'The party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance any fact necessary to its defense.' (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1157.) 'With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges.' (Baker, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 1160, emphasis in original.) Here, Uber submitted copies of the various iterations of the Terms of Use agreed to by Prince and Watson. Those Terms of Use include an arbitration provision that expressly encompasses 'any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to . . . incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury.' Neither Prince nor Watson disputed that they were bound by the arbitration agreements, nor otherwise opposed Uber's motion. The motion is therefore granted as to Uber.

Jabaar Jabaar joins in Uber's motion. Although not a party to the arbitration agreements with Prince and Watson, Jabaar argues that he can compel arbitration based on those agreements under two theories: agency and equitable estoppel. The first theory is dispositive, and therefore it is unnecessary to address the second.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066192  50 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PRINCE VS JABAAR [IMAGED]  37-2023-00034016-CU-PA-CTL '[W]hen a plaintiff alleges a defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, the defendant may enforce the agreement even though the defendant is not a party thereto.' (Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614.) A 'plaintiff's allegations of an agency relationship among defendants is sufficient to allow the alleged agents to invoke the benefit of an arbitration agreement executed by their principal even though the agents are not parties to the agreement.' (Id. at pp.

614–615; accord Najarro v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 871, 885, fn. 8; Garcia v. Pexco LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782, 788.) Here, Prince and Watson allege that 'each Defendant named in this complaint . . . are, and at all times mentioned herein were, the agent, servant, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants and that each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his, her, or its authority as the agent, servant, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants.' (Compl. ¶ 9.) Beyond this general agency allegation, Prince and Watson make several specific agency allegations.

Jabaar was allegedly an 'Uber driver' who was driving an 'Uber vehicle' and 'using the Uber Driver app at the time of the incident.' (Compl. ¶¶ 11–17.) Jabaar allegedly drove the Uber vehicle erratically and recklessly 'while he was acting on behalf of Defendant Uber. Despite knowing that he was unfit to drive, Defendant Uber authorized Defendant Ali Jabaar to drive the Uber vehicle anyway with a knowing disregard for others' safety.' (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 54.) Uber allegedly 'had the opportunity and the ability to control the conduct of Defendant Ali Jabaar but failed to do so.' (Compl. ¶ 49.) Prince and Watson's claims against Uber also sound in agency/respondeat superior. The first cause of action is for 'negligence' and alleges that Jabaar breached his duty of care to drive 'in a reasonably safe manner.' (Compl. ¶¶ 24–25.) The only apparent basis for holding Uber liable for Jabaar's negligence is the theory that Jabaar was acting as Uber's agent. The third cause of action is for 'negligent entrustment, hiring, retention, and/or supervision' and alleges that Uber breached its own duty of care 'in hiring, training, managing, and supervision of its employees' by failing 'to provide any or sufficient training, managing and supervision' of those 'acting on its behalf.' (Compl. ¶¶ 43–45.) Again, Uber's liability appears to be largely premised on the theory that Jabaar was acting on its behalf while driving the Uber vehicle.

Prince and Watson rely on Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 446, which held that 'boilerplate allegations of mutual agency' do not constitute judicial admissions automatically entitling every defendant in a multi-defendant case to piggyback off one defendant's arbitration agreement, 'regardless of how tenuous or nonexistent the connections among the defendants might actually be.' (Id. at p. 451.) The court emphasized that the non-signatory defendants attempting to compel arbitration as the agents of the signatory defendant had expressly refused to concede that they were, in fact, acting as the signatory's agents. (Id. at pp. 452–453.) Barsegian is inapposite. As set forth above, Jabaar does not rely solely on a boilerplate allegation of mutual agency, but also on specific facts indicating an agency relationship and specific claims dependent upon such a relationship. Nor has Jabaar indicated that he intends to dispute that he was driving on behalf of Uber at the time of the accident.

As an alleged agent of Uber, Jabaar can compel arbitration based on Uber's agreement with Prince and Watson. As Prince and Watson have not otherwise challenged the applicability or enforceability of the arbitration agreement, the motion is granted as to Jabaar.

Conclusion The motion to compel arbitration and joinder thereto are granted. Prince and Watson are ordered to arbitrate their claims against Uber and Jabaar in accordance with the arbitration provision contained in the January 17, 2023 Terms and Conditions.

This matter is stayed pending arbitration. The court sets a status conference for September 20, 2024 at Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066192  50 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PRINCE VS JABAAR [IMAGED]  37-2023-00034016-CU-PA-CTL 10:00am.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066192  50