Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV19379, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19379    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

Background

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Pedro Armando Chinchilla, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence and (2) General Negligence stemming from a motor vehicle collision occurring on November 13, 2021.

On October 16, 2023, Defendant filed its answer.

On November 2, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel arbitration. No opposition has been filed. On December 12, 2023, Defendant filed notice of nonopposition.

Legal Standard

Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the parties’ dispute.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

Discussion

On November 2, 2023, Moving Party filed this motion to compel arbitration.

Defendant assets that Plaintiff is bound to arbitrate his complaint because there exists an agreement to arbitrate in the Terms of Service agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff. (Motion, 18:1-5.) Per the Terms of Service, attached as Exhibit 3, and updated Terms of Service, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 7, No. 17 details dispute resolution, in that “all disputes and claims between [Defendant and Plaintiff] … shall be exclusively resolved by binding arbitration.” Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claim arise from an incident that while riding in Defendant Doe’s vehicle via the Lyft app. (Motion, 18:11-12.) Also included are two emails to Plaintiff alerting him to the updates of the terms of services, and that continued use of the app constitutes agreement. (Exhibit 4 & 6.) Defendant contends Plaintiff accepted the terms of services, and thus the arbitration agreement, on three separate occasions, on October 18, 2016, on January 12, 2020, and on February 1, 2021. (Simmons Decl., ¶ 12.)

The Court finds that there was an agreement to arbitrate between Defendant and Plaintiff. Further, the Court finds since the incident occurred while using the Lyft platform, per the terms of the arbitration agreement, this cause of action would be bound to it.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

The Court finds that Defendant has established there is a binding arbitration agreement between the parties.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration. The parties are ORDERED to attend arbitration according to the specific provisions of the Terms of Service Agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendant.

The Court STAYS the proceedings in this case pending resolution of the said arbitration.

The Court sets an OSC re status of the arbitration in approximately six months.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.