SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Andreas Ranasen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Tigran Tadevosyan and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on October 27, 2019.   

At this time, Uber moves to compel arbitration and stay the action pending completion of arbitration. As of November 14, 2023, no opposition was filed. The motion is unopposed.   

 

II. Motion to Compel Arbitration 

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 opposing party has the burden to establish any defense to enforcement.  (Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579 (“The petitioner, T–Mobile here, bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the opposing party, plaintiffs here, bears the burden of proving any fact necessary to its defense.”); Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [“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.”].)   

In California, there is a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration.”  (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.)  Accordingly, “doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor of arbitration.”  (Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak St. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323.)  Further, “under 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. Sup. Ct. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)  This policy, however, is tempered by the recognition that arbitration must be based on an enforceable contract, as “[t]here is no public policy favoring arbitration of disputes which the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.”  (Engineers & Architects Assn. v. Community Development Dept. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 644, 653.) 

Moreover, the right to arbitration depends upon contract, and “[t]here is no public policy favoring arbitration of disputes that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.”  (Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1229.)  There is a “ ‘strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.’ “  (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9)  However, it is essential to the proper operation of that policy that “ ‘[t]he scope of arbitration is ... a matter of agreement between the parties' [citation], and ‘ “[t]he powers of an arbitrator are limited and circumscribed by the agreement or stipulation of submission.” ‘ [Citations.]”  (Ibid.)  An agreement that the FAA governs the parties’ dispute is binding and enforceable, and thus, the parties’ agreement is to be read and interpreted under the FAA.  (See Gloster v. Sonic Automotive, Inc. (2014) 2016 Cal.App.4th 438, 446-47.) 

Here, Uber contends Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claims against Uber, including the claims Plaintiff now asserts in this action. Uber asserts Plaintiff initially registered for an Uber account on October 29, 2013, and therein accepted Uber’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement. The Terms that were in effect on October 29, 2013, when Plaintiff registered for an account, were the Terms of Use from September 5, 2013, which contained an arbitration agreement. Plaintiff received an email on November 14, 2016 with the subject line “We’ve Updated Our Terms of Use” that provided notice of updates to the Rider App Terms & Conditions. The email stated continued use of the Uber App would constitute assent to the updated Terms, and the Terms were available via hyperlink in the email. The email contained the Terms of Use from November 21, 2016, which included an arbitration provision. Uber avers the September 2013 Terms and November 2016 Terms included a provision that all disputes or claims arising from the Agreement would be resolved via arbitration, and the fact that all questions, including the interpretation of the scope of the Terms, are solely within the discretion of the arbitrator. 

Uber argues the Terms include a clear and conspicuous arbitration provision, and the parties agreed the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) would govern the agreement. Uber states that on January 30, 2021, January 9, 2022, and March 9, 2023, Plaintiff was presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen with the header, “We’ve updated our terms.  (Mot. Gaddis Decl. ¶ 11.)  Under the message, the phrases “Terms of Use” and “Privacy Notice” were displayed in blue text to set it apart from the other text on the screen and indicate a hyperlink.  The in-app pop-up screen stated, “By checking the box, I have reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice.”  (Ibid.)  Defendants contends Plaintiff clicked the checkbox and tapped “Confirm,” and thus, Plaintiff expressly consented to the January 18, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023 Terms by checking the box.  (Id. at ¶ 14.)  Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and therefore does not dispute this action arises out of Plaintiff’s use of Uber’s services.   

Clickwrap agreements are those in which website users are required to click on an “I agree” box after being presented with a list of terms and conditions of use.  (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1171, 1175-76.)  “Clickwrap agreements require a user to affirmatively click a box on the website acknowledging awareness of and agreement to the terms of service before he or she is allowed to proceed with further utilization of the website. [Citations omitted] Clickwrap agreements ‘have been routinely upheld by circuit and district courts…”  (United States v. Drew (C.D.Cal. 2009) 259 F.R.D. 449, 462 n.22 [internal quotations omitted].)   

This evidence shows Plaintiff took affirmative actions demonstrating agreement with the license agreements and terms of sale, all of which contained arbitration agreements.  (See Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., supra, 2016 WL 6476934 at *5; see also Cordas v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017) 228 F.Supp.3d 985, 988-990.)  Accordingly, Uber has shown the existence of an arbitration agreement consented to by Plaintiff. Furthermore, the agreement provides Plaintiff agrees to arbitrate any claim arising out of or relating to Plaintiff’s use of services, incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury, “whether the dispute, claim or controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to the Terms.” (Gaddis Decl. Exh. G.) 

In addition, while courts often decide issues of “arbitrability,” the “'parties can agree to arbitrate “gateway” questions of “arbitrability,” such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.”'  (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 891, quoting Rent–A–Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 68-69.) 

 

Here, the agreement provides in pertinent part: 

 

The parties agree that the arbitrator ("Arbitrator"), and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any disputes relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Arbitration Agreement, including any claim that all or any part of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable. The Arbitrator shall also be responsible for determining all threshold arbitrability issues, including issues relating to whether the Terms are applicable, unconscionable or illusory and any defense to arbitration, including waiver, delay, laches, or estoppel. If there is a dispute about whether this Arbitration Agreement can be enforced or applies to a dispute, you and Uber agree that the arbitrator will decide that issue. 

(Gaddis Decl. Exh. G.)   

The agreement is clear all issues relating to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration provision is for the arbitrator to decide. Consequently, any challenges to the scope and enforceability of the agreement must be decided by an arbitrator, not the Court. 

Uber establishes there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate as to Uber. The unopposed motion to arbitrate is GRANTED.  Because there is a risk of conflicting rulings, the case is stayed pending arbitration.   

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 28th day of November 2023