SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Snow (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier LLC, Miguel Angel Can (“Can”), and Juan Ricardo Barrows (“Barrows”) for damages arising from an automobile collision that occurred on June 5, 2022.  The complaint alleges Plaintiff was a passenger in Can’s vehicle when Can made a left turn and collided with Barrows. Plaintiff alleges Can was an employee/agent of Uber.   

At this time, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC (collectively, “Uber Defendants”) move to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the Uber Defendants filed a reply.  

 

Here, the Uber Defendants contend Plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate the claims he is asserting in this action. The Uber Defendants assert Plaintiff registered for an Uber account on September 30, 2013 and agreed to Uber’s Terms of Use, which contained an Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiff further agreed to Uber’s updated April 14, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023 Terms of Use, which required Plaintiff to resolve any claim he may have against the Uber Defendants in arbitration, and which gave the arbitrator exclusive authority to determine the threshold question of arbitrability. The Uber Defendants argue the April 14, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023 Terms include a clear and conspicuous arbitration provision, and the parties agreed the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) would govern the agreement.   

The Uber Defendants assert that Plaintiff signed up for an Uber account on September 30, 2013. (Mot. Gaddis Decl. ¶ 8.) The Terms of Service in effect on June 5, 2022 was the September 5, 2013 terms, which contained an Arbitration Agreement. (Ibid.) On June 29, 2021, December 26, 2021, and February 4, 2023, Plaintiff was presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen with the header “We’ve updated our terms.” (Id. at ¶ 12.) Additionally, in large type, was the message “We encourage you to read our Updated Terms in full” and beneath that the phrases “Terms of Use” and “Privacy Notice” were displayed underlined and in bright blue text, set from other text on the screen and indicated by a hyperlink. (Ibid.) 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.)  The in-app blocking pop-up screen precluded the use of the Uber app unless and until a user clicked the checkbox on the screen and clicked the large “Confirm” button at the bottom of the screen. (Id. at ¶ 13; Exh. F.) The Uber Defendants contend Plaintiff clicked the checkbox and tapped “Confirm,” and thus, Plaintiff expressly consented to the April 14, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023 terms by checking the box on June 29, 2021, December 26, 2021, and February 4, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 15; Exh. A.)   

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 he 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].)   

In agreeing to the April 14, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023 Terms, Plaintiff had to click an in-App box stating, “By checking the box, I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice.” (Gaddis Decl. ¶12.) The user is not able to ignore the blocking pop-up screens and use the Uber app without clicking the checkbox and clicking the “Confirm” button. (Id. at ¶ 13.)  Plaintiff’s continued use of the Uber App, whether it be direct or as a third-party beneficiary, shows Plaintiff took affirmative action demonstrating agreement, 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, the Uber Defendants have shown the existence of an arbitration agreement consented to by Plaintiff.  

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff and Aaron Ferguson (“Ferguson”) were both passengers in the same Uber ride, and that Ferguson had used his own cellphone and Uber application to order the subject Uber. Plaintiff argues that he did not use his own Uber account, and therefore the Terms of Use are not applicable to Plaintiff for the subject incident. However, even if Plaintiff did not use his own Uber app to order the Uber, Plaintiff received Uber transportation to meet his needs and interest as a third-party beneficiary and co-rider. As quoted by Plaintiff under the contractual terms of use: “Uber operates a personalized multipurpose digital marketplace platform (" Uber Marketplace Platform ") that enables you to conveniently find, request, or receive transportation…” Plaintiff does not dispute that he received transportation and benefitted from the use of Uber’s rideshare services. Additionally, the arbitration agreement states under the Covered Disputes section that the agreement covers “incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury to you or anyone else that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services.” (Gaddis Decl.; Exh. G.) Thus the contract containing the agreement was intended to benefit and cover both Ferguson, the application user, and Plaintiff, another passenger who also benefitted from use of the Uber application. 

Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the FAA governs the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. An agreement that the FAA governs the parties’ dispute is binding and enforceable, and thus, that 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.)  

While Plaintiff argues CCP § 1281.2 allows the court to deny a motion to compel arbitration where there is a possibility of conflicting rulings concerning parties not bound by the arbitration agreement, because there is no dispute that the FAA would govern the agreement, the court cannot look to CCP § 1282.2 to deny the motion to arbitrate.  (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 342-43, n 345-46.)   

The Uber Defendants have established there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate.  The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.  The action is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.   

 

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.