Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV25497, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25497    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 19, 2023, Mari Goto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Bo Li, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, and Does 1 through 40, asserting various causes of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on October 19, 2021, on the 110 Freeway near to the Figueroa Street exit in Los Angeles.  Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that Plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of Defendant Li, and that Defendant Li was driving for Uber at the time of the accident.

On February 2, 2024, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC filed an answer to the complaint.

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Fredy Garcia Hernandez and Jairo Sandoval as Does 1 and 2.

On March 22, 2024, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) filed this motion to compel arbitration.

No opposition has been filed.

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.”  

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides, in pertinent part, the following:

“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 ....” 

(d) … If the court determines that a party to the arbitration is also a party to litigation in a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party as set forth under subdivision (c), the court (1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement and may order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action or special proceeding; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding.

(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 (see §1281.2(a), (b))—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

Uber moves for an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s claim against Uber in accordance with the terms of an agreement between the parties to arbitrate.  Uber also seeks to stay litigation of Plaintiff’s claims against Uber pending completion of the arbitration.

Uber has met its initial burden of showing that there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties that covers the matters in dispute here. 

Chenshan Yu, Data Scientist for Uber, has submitted a written declaration explaining (among other things): (1) that Plaintiff accepted Uber’s Terms of Service when she created her user account on April 15, 2017, and subsequently accepted a series of Uber’s updated Terms of Service on January 21, 2021 and December 21, 2021.  (Yu Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9.) 

Paragraph 2 of Uber’s Terms of Use dated March 23, 2017, includes an agreement to arbitrate “any dispute, claim or controversy,” subject to some exclusions that do not apply here.  (Exh. B, at p. 11.)  Paragraph 2 of Uber’s Terms of Use that Plaintiff accepted in January 2021, as well as paragraph 2 of the Terms of Use that Plaintiff accepted in December 2021, also contain similar provisions.  (Id., Exh. D.).

Uber has made a prima facie showing to support the requested relief.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition showing any defense to enforcement.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Uber’s motion to compel arbitration.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and Uber to arbitrate their dispute pursuant to the terms of the agreements between them.

The Court STAYS litigation of Plaintiff’s claim against Uber (only).  This order does not have any effect on Plaintiff’s litigation of claims against any other defendant in this matter.

The Court sets an OSC re dismissal (completion of arbitration) for November __, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.