Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 24STCV21481, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff Nicholas Brian Kauffman filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies Inc., Raiser LLC, Raiser-CA LLC, and Carmen Payan.

On November 4, 2024, Uber Technologies Inc., Raiser LLC, and Raiser-CA LLC (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to compel arbitration.

When seeking to compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s claims, the defendant must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the agreement. (Ibid.) After the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, it then considers objections to its enforceability. (Ibid.)

The Court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Under California law and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), an arbitration agreement may be invalid based upon grounds applicable to any contract, including unconscionability, fraud, duress, and public policy. (Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 154, 165-166.)

A. Moving Defendants Have Shown The Existence of An Arbitration Agreement with a Delegation Clause.

In January 2021 and December 2021, Plaintiff checked a box and confirmed his acceptance of Terms of Use that contained an arbitration agreement. (Motion at p. 23.) Moving Defendants provide a copy of the arbitration agreement. (Motion, Ex. G.) Through the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate “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, . . . (iii) incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury to you or anyone else that you allege occurred in connection with your use of the Services . . . regardless whether the dispute, claim or controversy occurred or accrued before or after the date you agreed to the Terms, and regardless whether you allege that the personal injury was experienced by you or anyone else . . . .” Plaintiff’s cause of action arises from a driver’s alleged negligence that caused a traffic accident and Plaintiff’s injuries. This is within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff argues that the validity of the Terms of Use and Arbitration Agreement must be determined under California law, and the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable. (Opposition at p. 12.) Under California law, for a delegation clause to be effective, the language of the clause must be clear and unmistakable, and the delegation must not be revocable under state contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability. (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 892.) An unconscionability challenge must be specifically directed at the delegation provision, not the entire arbitration agreement. (Id. at p. 895.) Plaintiff challenges the unconscionability of the full agreement, not specifically the delegation provision.

In the agreements here, the parties agreed that “[o]nly an arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable. An Arbitrator shall also have exclusive authority to resolve all threshold arbitrability issues, including issues relating to whether the Terms are applicable, unconscionable, or illusory and any defense to arbitration, including without limitation waiver, delay, laches, or estoppel.” (Motion at p. 25.)

This is a clear and unmistakable delegation of the issues of “the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Arbitration Agreement” and “issues relating to whether the Terms are applicable, unconscionable, or illusory and any defense to arbitration” to the arbitrator.

Moving Defendants have satisfied their burden of showing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Carmen Payan is not subject to the arbitration agreement, and Payan did not move to compel arbitration.

A court must grant a motion to compel arbitration unless a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action with a third party arising out of the same transaction and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c).) If the court does determine that subdivision (c) applies, the court 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 may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

Plaintiff alleges that he was a passenger in a vehicle that was negligently driven by Payan, causing his injuries. (Complaint ¶¶ 12-14.) Payan was acting within the course and scope of her employment for the Moving Defendants. (Complaint ¶ 5.) The sole cause of action for negligence is alleged jointly against all defendants. All issues in arbitration therefore depend on whether Carmen Payan was indeed negligent before it can be determined whether the Moving Defendants are also liable.

Accordingly, the Court will stay arbitration pending the outcome of the remainder of this court action.

The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED IN PART. The case against the Moving Defendants is ordered to arbitration, but arbitration is STAYED pending the outcome of this court action against Defendant Carmen Payan.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court