Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV02986, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02986    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in GRANTED.

Background

This case arises out of a vehicle accident on March 27, 2021. On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff Josselyne Adilene Hernandez Rogel (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Uber Technologies, Inc., John Doe, and Does 1 through 100.

On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting the same claims against the same defendants. In the FAC, an additional plaintiff (Evelyn Martinez Sanchez) is listed.

On June 1, 2023, Plaintiffs amended their complaint by correcting the name of one of the defendants: Plaintiffs state that Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) is the correct name of the defendant incorrectly named as Uber Technologies, Inc.

On September 8, Lyft filed an Answer. On September 21, Lyft filed this motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation proceedings.

Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (See Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281, 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.”  

“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. 

(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.) 

“[W]hen a petition to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable. Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation … —that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

Discussion

In this unopposed motion, Lyft has made out a prima facie case that the Plaintiffs and Lyft entered into a contract that included a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. (McCachern Decl., ¶¶ 7-21 & Exhs. 2-11.) The fact that Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit is also prima facie evidence that Plaintiffs refuse to arbitrate.

Plaintiffs have filed no opposition.

Accordingly, regardless of whether this motion is governed by the California Arbitration Act or the Federal Arbitration Act, Lyft has shown that it is entitled to relief. Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation proceedings is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion, compels Plaintiff to arbitrate their claims against Lyft, stays all proceedings in this matter, and vacates the trial date.

The Court sets an Order to Show Cause regarding status of the arbitration in late April 2024.   

Moving party is ordered to give notice.