Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV15464, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15464    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 30

ANGELIQUE R GRIEGO vs LYFT, INC

Motion to Compel Arbitration

TENTATIVE

Defendant Lyft’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The matter between Plaintiff and Defendant Lyft is STAYED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DISCUSSION  

Existence of Valid and Enforceable Agreement to Arbitrate

Defendant argues that Plaintiff entered in a valid arbitration agreement with Lyft, when Plaintiff agreed to Lyft’s Terms of Service three separate times—both before and after the alleged Incident—by acknowledging her consent (and reaffirming that consent) within the Lyft App. (McCachern Decl., ¶¶ 12 and 12a-12e; COE, Exh. 2.) Each version of the Terms of Service to which Plaintiff consented contained an identical arbitration provision. (McCachern Decl., ¶ 15.)

The relevant language of the arbitration provision contained in Defendant’s Terms of Services states:

Lyft and Plaintiff “AGREE TO WAIVE OUR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE OR JURY AND AGREE TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY ARBITRATION. This agreement is bound by the Federal Arbitration Act… This arbitration agreement applies to all Claims [except small claims actions, PAGA representative action, workers’ compensation, and claims that may be not subject to arbitration as a matter of generally applicable law not preempted by the FAA, sexual assault claims] between you and Lyft….

(COE, Exhs. 3, 5, and 7 at ¶ 17(a).)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant has met its initial burden to show that an arbitration agreement exists between Defendant and Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to dispute that an arbitration agreement exists. As such, the Court finds there was a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between Defendant Lyft and Plaintiff.    

Claims Fall within Scope of Arbitration Agreement

Plaintiff’s claim arises from injuries she sustained while she was involved in a vehicle collision. Thus, Plaintiff’s dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to dispute this point.

Because Defendant has proven the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and Plaintiff has not refuted these elements, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.