Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV03256, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV03256, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03256 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Finci v. Lyft Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: 23SMCV03256

MOTION: Petition/Motion to Compel Arbitration

HEARING DATE: 2/13/2024

Legal Standard

Under California and federal law, public policy favors arbitration as an efficient and less expensive means of resolving private disputes. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9; AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.) Accordingly, whether an agreement is governed by the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) or the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), courts resolve doubts about an arbitration agreement’s scope in favor of arbitration. (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 9; Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs. (9th Cir. 2009) 553 F.3d 1277, 1284; see also Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-972 [“California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability [citation] and a requirement that an arbitration agreement must be enforced on the basis of state law standards that apply to contracts in general”].) “[U]nder both the FAA and California law, ‘arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’ ” (Higgins v. Superior Crout (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to grant a petition to compel arbitration if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.” (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 59, quotations omitted.) Accordingly, “when presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the court’s first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute.” (Ibid.) A petition to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Id. at 71.) As with any other specific performance claim, “a party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement must show the agreement’s terms are sufficiently definite to enable the court to know what it is to enforce.” (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].) “Only the valid and binding agreement of the parties, including all material terms well-defined and clearly expressed, may be ordered specifically performed.” (Ibid.) An arbitration agreement “must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.” (Civ. Code, § 1636.) The language of the contract governs its interpretation if it is clear and explicit. (Civ. Code, § 1368.) If uncertainty exists, “the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.” (Civ. Code, § 1654.)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) It would then be plaintiff’s burden, in opposing the motion, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to her opposition. (See Ibid.) “In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Ibid.)

Analysis

Defendant Lyft Inc. moves to arbitrate Plaintiff Lal Finci’s claims based upon Plaintiff’s signature to an arbitration agreement covering such claims. Plaintiff has not submitted an opposition to this motion.

As with any contract, mutual assent or consent is necessary for the formation of a valid arbitration agreement. (Civ. Code, §§ 1550, 1565.) “Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.” (Civ. Code, § 1580.) The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. (Mitri v. Arnel Mgmt. Co. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1169 [“Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.”].)

Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff affirmatively accepted Lyft’s Terms of Service, including its prominent mutual arbitration clause. On two separate occasions, including on July 15, 2021, the day before the subject incident, Plaintiff consented to the December 9, 2020, Terms of Service. (McCachern Decl., ¶¶ 4-12, Exs. 2, 3, 5.) The Terms of Service provided the following disclaimer:

PLEASE BE ADVISED: THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT GOVERN HOW CLAIMS BETWEEN YOU AND LYFT CAN BE BROUGHT (SEE SECTION 17 BELOW). THESE PROVISIONS WILL, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTION, REQUIRE YOU TO SUBMIT CLAIMS YOU HAVE AGAINST LYFT TO BINDING AND FINAL ARBITRATION . . .

By entering into this Agreement, and/or by using or accessing the Lyft Platform you expressly acknowledge that you understand this Agreement (including the dispute resolution and arbitration provisions in Section 17) and accept all of its terms. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MAY NOT USE OR ACCESS THE LYFT PLATFORM OR ANY OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH THE LYFT PLATFORM.

(Ex. 5 at p. 1.)

Lyft also provides a sufficient record demonstrating that the electronic signature was the act of Plaintiff. (See Civ. Code § 1633.9.) Plaintiff’s claims against Lyft arise out of her use of the Lyft platform, and therefore fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Moreover, the arbitrability of her claims are subject to arbitration through an express delegation clause. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties that cover the claims here. Plaintiff fails to oppose and therefore fails to demonstrate that the claims are not subject to the agreement. Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED and the Court orders Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration per the terms of the above agreement. The entire action is STAYED pending the completion of the arbitration. (CCP § 1281.4.) As status conference re arbitration is set for December 5, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.