Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV02617, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 24STCV02617    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December 9, 2024                                          

CASE NAME:           Soho Yun v. Kunzang Tsheqang, et al.

CASE NO.:                24STCV02617

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:  

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of December 3, 2024

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order compelling arbitration between Plaintiff and Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC and stay pending arbitration.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED as to Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC ONLY;

2.      The case is STAYED as to the remaining defendants.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff Soho Yun (Plaintiff) filed a personal injury Complaint against Defendants Kunzang Tsheqang, Benjamin Khorsandi, Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC (Defendants) with one cause of action for Negligence as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

On April 12, 2024, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC (Uber Defendants) filed an Answer.

On June 18, 2024, Defendant Kunzang Tsheqang filed an Answer.

On July 2, 2024, Defendant Benjamin Khorsandi filed an Answer.

On August 9, 2024, the Uber Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On November 20, 2024, Defendant Tsheqang filed a non-opposition to the Uber Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Oppositions were due on or before November 22, 2024. As of December 3, 2024, the court has not received any oppositions.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Under California law, the trial court has authority to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP §1281.2 where a written agreement for such arbitration exists and one of the parties refuses to arbitrate.¿ Specifically, the statute provides that, “[o]n 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 arbitrate the controversy exists.”¿ The statute further sets forth four grounds upon which the trial court may refuse to compel arbitration: (a) the right to compel arbitration was waived, (b) recission of the agreement, (c) there is a pending action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction; and (d) petitioner is a state or federally chartered depository institution.¿ 

“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”¿¿(Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc.¿(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284¿(Guiliano).)¿“In determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the¿circumstances under which the agreement was made.”¿¿(Weeks v. Crow¿(1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353.)¿ “To determine whether a contractual arbitration clause requires arbitration of a particular controversy, the controversy is first identified and the issue is whether that controversy is within the scope of the contractual arbitration clause.”¿¿(Titolo¿v. Cano¿(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 310, 316.)¿ “Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.”¿¿(California Correctional Peace Officers¿Ass'n¿v. State¿(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205.)¿¿¿ 

However, when an arbitration agreement states that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs enforcement, the FAA governs a motion to compel arbitration. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 345-346 (Victrola 89).) “A written provision … to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising … or … to submit to arbitration an existing controversy … shall be¿valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” [9 U.S.C. § 2¿(emphasis added)] A party to an arbitration agreement may seek a court order compelling the parties to arbitrate a dispute covered by the agreement. (9 U.S.C. § 4.) 

Under both the FAA and California Law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract.¿ (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)¿ 

“[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.”¿¿(Giuliano, supra, at p. 1284.)¿¿ 

ANALYSIS:

Compel Arbitration

The Uber Defendants move to compel arbitration on the grounds that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate by agreeing to its Terms of Service. They further contend that the Terms of Service contain an arbitration provision, Plaintiff clicked “I Accept” on a pop-up notification requiring acceptance of the Terms of Service to continue using Uber’s services, and Plaintiff continued using Uber’s services. Plaintiff did not file an oppositions.

The FAA restricts a court’s inquiry related to compelling arbitration to two threshold questions: (1) whether there was an agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the agreement covers the dispute.¹¿ (Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84.)

Here, the Uber Defendants have met their burden that the agreement is enforceable. First, the FAA governs the agreement according to its explicit terms. (Yu Decl. ¶ 13, Exhibit D, Section 2.) Defendants Rasier, LLC and Raiser-CA, LLC are covered under the agreement as wholly-owned subsidiaries of Uber. (Yu Decl. ¶¶ 5, 13, Exhibit D.) The Uber Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff registered for an Uber account on October 5, 2019 and accepted Uber’s Terms of Service on December 22, 2021 and January 20, 2023. (Yu Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9, Exhibit A.) Each of the Terms of Service contain an arbitration provision. (Yu Decl. ¶ 13, Exhibit D.) Second, the agreement provides that all disputes and claims between Uber and Plaintiff involving any accidents resulting in personal injury will be resolved by binding arbitration (Yu Decl. ¶ 13, Exhibit D.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on a motor vehicle accident while she was using Uber’s services. (Complaint ¶¶ 6, 7, 9.) Therefore, the Uber Defendants have met their burden that the agreement covers the present controversy. There is no opposition.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Uber Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED as to Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC ONLY;

2.      The case is STAYED as to the remaining defendants.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             December 9, 2024                   __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court