Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV01205, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01205    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 5-1-23

Case #22CHCV01205

Trial Date: N/A

ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Lynn Cartwright

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Arbitration

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 11, 2022, Plaintiff Lynn Cartwright was a passenger in a vehicle operated by defendant Valdemar Arevalo, and summoned via technology provided by defendant Uber technologies, Inc., when the vehicle was involved in a collision. On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages.
 

RULING: Continued for Supplemental Briefing

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC (Collectively “Uber”) moves to compel arbitration. Uber moves for relief on grounds that the Terms of Use agreement incorporated to all users engaging in Uber provided services requires arbitration of claims under the Federal Arbitration Act. Plaintiff Cartwright submits a notice of non-opposition, as well as a represented effort to obtain a stipulation for arbitration. Uber in reply acknowledges the non-opposition and reiterates the motion to compel. As of the date of the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court shows no stipulation on file, and therefore considers the merits of the motion.

In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement. The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.). (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin'l Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) Defendants in oral argument cited recent case law regarding the three step process for moving party to establish an enforceable arbitration agreement. (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164–165.) The first step requires either presentation of a written agreement to arbitrate, or presentation of terms without dispute from the opposing party. (Id., at p. 165.)

The existence and terms of the agreement are not disputed. [Declaration of Alejandra Vasquez.] It is also undisputed the alleged collision constitutes an event subject to arbitration. Notwithstanding, Uber also cites to a provision regarding the right of the arbitrator to consider arbitrability.

The motion apparently only seeks arbitration with Plaintiff, and otherwise lacks address of co-defendant, driver, Arevalo. While the arbitrator may decide on the issue of arbitrability, the court still remains responsible for compelling the parties to arbitration. As a matter of court policy, the court prefers to send all parties to arbitration, rather than engage in piecemeal litigation. “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: … (c) 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.)

While arbitration agreements may only be generally compelled by parties to the agreement, the doctrine of equitable estoppel allows for a non-signatory party to compel arbitration “‘when the causes of action against the nonsignatory are “intimately founded in and intertwined” with the underlying contract obligations.’” (JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1237; Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 495-496; Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 217-218; Crowley Maritime Corp. v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1070 [Under equitable estoppel, a party cannot avoid participation in arbitration, where the party received “a direct benefit under the contract containing an arbitration clause…”]; Boucher v. Alliance Title Co, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262, 271).)

Arevalo was served with the motion, but filed no opposition to the motion. Given the lack of any specific address of Arevalo, however, the court declines to make the arguments on behalf of either Uber or Arevalo.

The court therefore orders Uber to serve a supplemental brief of no more than five (5) pages regarding the joinder of Arevalo. Uber may address any FAA guidelines, if applicable. If Uber requires more than five pages to explain the position, Uber may request for additional leave at the time of the hearing. Arevalo may submit an opposition to the motion against joinder into the arbitration within statutory page limits on points and authorities for an opposition to such a motion. If Arevalo chooses not to respond, the court will still consider the supplemental brief of Uber and proceed with a new hearing and issue a revised ruling at that time.

The court therefore continues the hearing to June 26, 2023. Any and all supplemental brief(s) from Uber, and, if applicable, Arevalo is/are due nine (9) court days before the hearing—June 13, 2023. If the parties stipulate to arbitration, the court asks the parties submit the stipulation to the court on or before the supplemental brief order date.

Case Management conference currently remains set for November 14, 2023.

Goshorn to give notice to all parties.