Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV32614, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32614    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE 

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The proceedings of this action are stayed pending the outcome of the parties’ arbitration. 

Legal Standard 

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.)  “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 such 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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) 

In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, “the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.”  (Peng v. First Republic Bank (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468.)  The court’s involvement is limited to “determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.”  (See Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955.)  “California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.”  (Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) 

“The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any defense, such as unconscionability.”  (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Dev. (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)   

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) generally confines the court’s analysis to two issues: (1) whether the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, and (2) whether it encompasses the dispute at issue.  (Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.)   

Discussion 

Existence of Valid Written Agreement to Arbitrate

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims, arguing Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.  

Defendant argues that Plaintiff entered in a valid arbitration agreement with Uber by way of Uber’s smartphone application. On October 15, 2022, Plaintiff was presented with in-app blocking pop-up screen with the header "We've updated our terms It also stated in large type, "We encourage you to read our Updated Terms in full" and under that message had the phrases "Terms of Us and "Privacy Notice," which were displayed underlined and in bright blue text, all of which set the text apart from other text on the screen and indicated a hyperlink. When a user clicked either hyperlink, the Terms of Use or Privacy Notice, respectively, were displayed. (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 7.) When a user clicked either hyperlink, the Terms of Use or Privacy Notice, respectively, were displayed. (Id.) The in-app blocking pop-up screen additionally had a clickbox which a user could select and next to the clickbox it expressly stated that: “By checking the box, I have reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice.” (Id. ¶ 8 & Ex. A.) Plaintiff expressly consented to the August 2022 Terms on October 15, 2022 at 11:53 p.m. UTC (which converts to October 15, 2022 at 4:55 p.m. PST) by clicking the checkbox. (Id.; Ex. B.)

The relevant language of the arbitration provision contained in Defendants’ Terms of Use states:

Except as expressly provided below in Section 2(b) [relating to small claims, sexual assault/harassment claims and intellectual property claims], 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.

(Buoscio Decl., Ex. C.) 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant has met its initial burden to show that an arbitration agreement exists between them and Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to refute that an arbitration agreement exists.  As such, the Court finds there was a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties.

               Claims Fall within Scope of Arbitration Agreement

Plaintiff’s claim arises from injuries she sustained while she was involved in a vehicle collision, and she contends Defendant negligently entrusted, owned, managed, maintained, repaired, drove and/or operated a motor vehicle. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims arise from the use of Uber’s services, and fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to dispute this point.

Because Defendant has proven the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and Plaintiff has not refuted these elements, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.

Conclusion 

Accordingly, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The proceedings of this action are stayed pending the outcome of the parties’ arbitration. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.