Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV18521, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18521    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 27, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant Bird Rides, Inc.

Responding Party: None

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.

THE ACTION IS STAYED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.  

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants for injuries Plaintiff received while riding an allegedly defective Bird Scooter.

ANALYSIS

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate a 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….”  (CCP § 1281.2.)  The right to compel arbitration exists unless the court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action arising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.   (CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).)  “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.”  (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

A. Existence of Arbitration Agreement

Defendant moves to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provisions in the Bird Rental Agreement, executed by Plaintiff May 3, 2018 and August 3, 2019, when she downloaded the Bird scooter rental application. The agreement provides, “[A]ll claims arising out of or relating to use and rental of a Vehicle, this Agreement, and the parties’ relationship with each other shall be finally settled by binding arbitration… administered by JAMS, or alternatively a mutually agreed upon arbitrator or arbitration service, under the applicable commercial arbitration rules for JAMS or the mutually agreed upon arbitration service, excluding any rules or procedures governing or permitting class actions.”

Defendant has met its burden to establish to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish any defenses to enforcement. Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion to show any defense to enforcement.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The action is STAYED.