Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV24268, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24268    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 30

ARMENAK BADOYAN, et al. vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. Clerk to give notice.

Legal Standard

The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to move the parties in an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 23.) The FAA is consistent with the federal policy to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate. (Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, 57.)

California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1281, 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 revocation of any contract. (CCP § 1281.) 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 unless grounds exist not to compel arbitration. (CCP § 1281.2.)

Under Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f), disputes over damages in uninsured/underinsured motorist claims are to be resolved in arbitration. (See Ins. Code § 11580.2, subd. (f).)

Discussion  

In deciding a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue of whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

“The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an arbitration agreement.¿The party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement's enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.¿In determining whether there is a duty to arbitrate, the trial court must, at least to some extent, examine and construe the agreement.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239, citations omitted; CCP § 1281.2)¿¿

Petitioner moves the Court to issue an order compelling Respondent to arbitration. However, Petitioner has not presented the Court with a written arbitration agreement that is signed by both Petitioner and Respondent. However, Petitioner states Respondent has failed to provide Petitioner with policy documents. As no agreement has been provided, the Court has no opportunity to examine the terms of said agreement.

Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.