Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCP03651, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03651    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 18, 2024.

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Petition to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Petitioner Uber Technologies

Responding Party: Labor Commissioner

T/R:     THE PETITION IS GRANTED.

PETITIONER 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 and supplemental briefing.

“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.)

Petitioner moves to compel arbitration of Respondent Ruiz’s wage and hour claims based on the arbitration provision in the Platform Access Agreement executed by Ruiz on January 6, 2020. (Decl. Sauerwein, Exh. F.) The agreement requires arbitration of “any legal dispute, past, present or future, arising out of or related to your relationship with [Uber] or relationship with any of our agents, employees, executives, officers, investors, shareholders, affiliates, successors, assigns, subsidiaries or parent companies...” (Id.) The agreement states that it is governed by the FAA.

At the November 30, 2023 hearing on this motion, the Court tentatively found that Petitioner has met its burden to establish an agreement to arbitrate, and Plaintiff did not oppose showing any defenses to enforcement.

At the hearing, the parties informed the Court that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) had issued a ruling and Petitioner had filed an appeal of the ruling seeking de novo review. (That case, no. 23STCP04042, is pending in this Court and is related to, but not consolidated with, the instant case.) The Labor Commissioner for the first time requested that the Court determine whether Labor Code § 98.2 should apply to an arbitration of the appeal of the DLSE ruling. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue.

In the supplemental briefs, Petitioner asks the Court to also compel to arbitration the related case appealing the DLSE decision. And the parties argue whether Labor Code § 98.2 should apply to the appeal of the DLSE opinion, and whether the Court or the arbitrator makes that decision.

The supplemental briefing revealed the procedural improprieties of the parties’ requests. Before the Court is whether Petitioner and Ruiz have an agreement to arbitrate claims for Labor Code violations. The Court found that such an agreement exists. The complexities arising from the DSLE proceedings, ruling, and appeal were not part of the noticed motion. Neither party has moved to compel the related case to arbitration, nor have the parties addressed in that matter the role of Section 98.2 in any such proceeding. The Court will not determine questions that have not properly been brought before the Court.

If a party seeks to arbitrate the appeal of the DLSE opinion and/or determine the applicability of Section 98.2 to that appeal, the party must file a motion to compel arbitration in the related case.  

The Court denies the request to stay the DSLE proceedings or the appeal from the DSLE decision.