I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff, Billy Massey (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc., John Doe, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.   

Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) now files a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Defendant, Galina Sergeevna Gaipova (“Gaipova”) joins.  

B. Procedural

On October 29, 2024, Defendant Uber filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On November 7, 20234, Defendant, Gaipova filed a Notice of Joinder. On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.  On November 14, 2024, Uber filed a reply brief. On November 15, 2024, Defendant Gaipova filed a joinder to the reply brief.  

II. ANALYSIS

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.)

Defendant Uber submits that Plaintiff has a history of consenting on the Uber platform. For example, Uber has submitted evidence indicating that Plaintiff agreed to its December 2017, January 2021, December 2021, April 2022 and January 2023 Terms (collectively “Terms”) on April 1, 2021, January 11, 2022, April 7, 2022, July 1, 2022, August 8, 2022, February 9, 2023, April 14, 2023, and April 20, 2023, respectively. (Declaration of Chenshan Yu (“Yu Decl.”), ¶ 11, Exhibit A.  

 Defendant Uber also includes the Arbitration Agreement it argues has been accepted by the Plaintiff several times through updates to the Terms of Service. Uber states the terms to which Plaintiff agreed contain sections separated by headings. The relevant language of the arbitration agreement according to Uber states:  

“(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.”  

(Yu Decl., Exhibit D.)  

This court finds that the FAA governs the agreement according to the explicit terms and because this case involves interstate commerce – despite Plaintiff’s argument otherwise. (Yu Dec. Ex. D, at Section 2.) Uber presents evidence that Plaintiff signed up for an Uber account and agreed to Uber’s updated terms. Uber states that its records show that on those days, Plaintiff accessed his Uber app and was presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen regarding the Terms, and clicked the checkbox and tapped the “Confirm” button. (Yu Decl., ¶¶ 9-11, Exhibit A, C.) The in-app blocking pop-up screen precluded use of the Uber app unless the user clicked the checkbox and clicked the large “Confirm” button. (Yu Decl., ¶ 10.)

In opposition, Plaintiff denies signing or agreeing to any arbitration agreement because there is nothing set forth from Uber to demonstrate he actually and knowingly clicked anything to agree to the imbedded arbitration agreement. Plaintiff further asserts that there is no signature from Plaintiff attesting that he noted he was singing an agreement with an arbitration agreement. As argued by Plaintiff, under Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, this is sufficient to challenge the authentication of the Arbitration Agreement. “If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. [Citation.] The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement. [Citations].” (Id. at pp. 165-66.)  Plaintiff’s evidence includes his own testimony, under oath, that he does not recall ever receiving notifications of terms or conditions nor does he assert was he ever provided notice that he was supposedly agreeing to arbitration and giving up his right to a jury trial for a dispute. (Declaration of Billy Massey (“Massey Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Thus, pursuant to Gamboa, the burden now shifts back to Uber to prove its validity by admissible evidence.

The Court finds that the evidence Uber has submitted is sufficient to establish the validity of the Arbitration Agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. Uber has established that Plaintiff “confirmed” or “consented to” the Terms of Service containing the Arbitration Agreement on at least 4 separate occasions. (Yu Decl., ¶ 11.) Not being able to recall signing an agreement on one occasion is perhaps understandable, but on multiple separate occasions makes it difficult to believe that Plaintiff either knew or should have known of the Arbitration Agreement. (Desert Outdoor Advertising v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 866, 872 [“A cardinal rule of contract law is that a party's failure to read a contract, or to carefully read a contract, before signing it is no defense to the contract's enforcement.”].)¿This court also finds that the Arbitration Agreement covers the claims at issue in this case. The terms of the arbitration provision from each iteration of Uber’s Terms of Service provide that it governs any dispute, claim, or controversy between Uber and its respective user. The scope of this provision is sufficiently broad to encompass Plaintiff’s claims against Uber in this action. As such, the court finds that Uber has also carried its burden to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement applies to the claim made in this case.  

Plaintiff’s opposition brief asserts that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because there is a risk of inconsistent rulings. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c) asserts that a court has discretion to deny enforcing an arbitration agreement if it determines “[a] party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c).) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement does not cover all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants. For example, Plaintiff contends that there is no evidence that Plaintiff and the Driver Defendant ever signed any agreement to arbitrate claims arising out of any interactions between them. Thus, Plaintiff argues there is a possibility of inconsistent rulings.  

Plaintiff also argues that even if this court determines that the FAA applies to this agreement (which it did above), that the FAA does not preempt the application of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c). The court disagrees. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 is preempted, and the third-party litigation exception under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2, subdivision (c) is preempted. [Dias v. Burberry Ltd. (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2021) 2021 WL 2349730, at *18 (holding that Section 1281.2 was inapplicable because FAA governs the Agreement)]. 

Next, as to the issue of whether the arbitration provision contemplated motor vehicle injury claims against Defendant Driver. Here, Defendant Driver, Gaipova, has joined Uber’s motion to compel arbitration and thus indicates that she consents to arbitrate Plaintiff’s claims against her. The court assumes that as an Uber driver, Giapova herself separately agreed to arbitrate any disputes she might have with Uber, including any cross-complaint that Uber may bring against her for indemnity or contribution. The claims against Uber may be separate or wholly interrelated with the claims against Defendant Gaipova. Having piecemeal litigation as between parties to the arbitration agreement and parties who are non-signatories was contemplated by Congress in the FAA and has been addressed by caselaw. Further, the manner of handling non-signatories as third parties is to stay the litigation against them while the arbitration proceeds, or to have the cases proceed separately. However, given that Gaipova has joined Uber’s motion to compel arbitration as well as its reply brief, the court does not believe it is necessary to stay litigation, and instead, orders the entire case and each of the parties to arbitration.  

III.  CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.    

Uber is ordered to give notice.