Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV31255, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31255    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 14, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendants Hinge, Inc., Tinder LLC and Match Group, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Hector Martinez

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ 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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff Hector Martinez filed a complaint against Defendants Hinge, Inc., Tinder LLC and Match Group, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) defamation; (2) breach of contract; and (3) violation of Consumer Protection Laws. Plaintiff alleges Defendants wrongfully banned him from using the Hinge dating app and sent defamatory statements to Plaintiff’s matches.

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 and Applicable Law

Defendants move to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement in the Terms of Use executed by Plaintiff upon creation of his Hinge account. (Decl. Greenspan, Exh. 1.) The agreement provides, “Any Dispute . . . shall be exclusively resolved through BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION . . . .” (Id.) “‘Dispute’ is any dispute, claim, or controversy between you and Hinge that arises from or relates in any way to this Agreement (including any alleged breach of this Agreement), the Service, or our relationship with you. ‘Dispute’ as used in this Agreement shall have the broadest possible meaning and include . . . claims that arise during the term of this Agreement or after the termination of this Agreement . . . .” (Id.) The agreement states that it is governed by the FAA and the laws of Texas.

Defendants have met their burden to establish an agreement to arbitrate. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish any defenses to enforcement.

B. Enforceability of Agreement

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the claims are not covered by the agreement, the agreement is unconscionable, Defendants have waived the right to arbitrate, and that arbitration would be unfairly inconvenient for Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. The plain language of the agreement covers all claims between Plaintiff and Hinge. Though the agreement is an adhesion agreement implying a level of procedural unconscionability, Plaintiff cites no provision in the agreement showing substantive unconscionability. Defendants have not acted inconsistently with their right to arbitrate. That Plaintiff would be inconvenienced by the forum is not grounds to deny the motion.

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.