Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02375, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV02375 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: February 29, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02375
CASE NAME: Ronald Harris v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ronald Harris (No Opposition)
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
MOTION: (1) Motion to Compel Arbitration
(2) Joinder by Defendant Vassel
Tentative Rulings: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED
(2) GRANTED.
The Civil action will be stayed except that the Court will set an Arbitration Status Hearing for December 13, 2024, 8:30 a.m., Dept. ING-8.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff, Ronald Harris (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Jogn Mark Vassell, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) Negligence.
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber”) now file a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Defendant, John Mark Vassel files a joiner.
B. Procedural
On February 1, 2024, Defendants, Uber, filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 6, 2024, Defendant, John Mark Vassell filed a notice of joinder in motion to compel arbitration. On February 27, 2024, Uber Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition.
II. ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) states that “[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.)
California law states that “[o]n petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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….” (Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.) “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.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2, generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2)¿the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues.
When seeking to compel arbitration, the initial burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by preponderance of evidence. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-42; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021), 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-65.) It is sufficient for the moving party to produce a copy of the arbitration agreement or set forth the agreement’s provisions. (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence any defense to enforcement of the contract or the arbitration clause. (Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 842; Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) Subsequently, the moving party must establish with the preponderance of admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.(Ibid.) The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination. (Ibid.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.)
If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
Discussion
Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
The Uber Defendants move to compel arbitration on the grounds that Plaintiff, on multiple occasions, agreed to arbitrate when he agreed to Uber’s “Terms of Use.” Uber submits that Plaintiff agreed to all of the following Terms of Use: January 2, 2016 Terms of Use (“January 2016 Terms”) on March 17, 2016; to Uber’s January 18, 2021 Terms of Use (“January 2021 Terms”) on February 5, 2021; to Uber’s December 16, 2021 Terms of Use (“December 2021 Terms”) on December 22, 2021; and to Uber’s January 17, 2023 Terms of Use (“January 2023 Terms”) on January 21, 2023. The agreement reads in pertinent part:
“(a) Agreement to Binding Arbitration Between You and Uber. [ ] you and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to (i) these Terms and prior versions of these Terms, or the existence, breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, scope, waiver, or validity thereof, (ii) your access to or use of the Services at any time, (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services, whether the dispute, claim or controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to the Terms, or (iv) your relationship with Uber, will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law. This Agreement survives after your relationship with Uber ends.”
(Declaration of Yanjing Zhang (“Zhang Decl.”), Exhibit G.)
First, this Court notes that the FAA governs the agreement according to its explicit terms. Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Agreement states: “Notwithstanding any choice of law or other provisions in the Terms, the parties agree and acknowledge that this Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce and that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. (“FAA”), will govern its interpretation and enforcement and proceedings pursuant thereto.” (Zhang Decl., Exhibit G, 2(c).) The Uber Defendants have presented evidence that Plaintiff registered for an uber account on March 17, 2016 (Zhang Decl., ¶ 8, Exhibit A), and has accepted Uber’s Terms of Use since his initial registration.
Additionally, the agreement provides that all disputes and claims between Uber and Plaintiff involving any accidents resulting in personal injuries will be resolved by binding arbitration. (Zhang Decl., Exhibit G, 2(a)(iii).) Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he was injured when he was taking an uber ride, and his driver cause the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger to collide with other vehicles. Consequently, the arbitration agreement would encompass the type of injury described in the arbitration agreement that subsequently binds Plaintiff to arbitration. Based on this, the Court finds that Uber has met its initial burden of showing that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and that Plaintiff’s claims are, on their face, bound by the arbitration agreement Plaintiff agreed to.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and the co-defendant Joinder are both GRANTED. The Civil action will be stayed except that the Court will set an Arbitration Status Hearing for December 13, 2024, 8:30 a.m., Dept. ING-8.
Uber Defendants are ordered to give notice.