Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV44343, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV44343    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 11, 2019, plaintiff Dean Hons (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Michael Bublin (“Bublin”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) arising from a December 16, 2017 motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed Bublin, who negligently operated a motor vehicle, and that Defendant also negligently abandoned Plaintiff at the scene of the collision.  Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 1, 2022.  On September 13, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action pending the completion of arbitration.  The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2, subds. (a), (b).)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.  (Fagelbaum & Heller LLP v. Smylie (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1363.)  Courts “use general principles of California contract law to determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.”  (Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153.) 

“If an application has been made to a court . . . for an order to arbitrate a controversy . . . the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claims against it when he agreed to Defendant’s April 2022 Terms of Use, which include a clear and conspicuous arbitration provision.  The provision further provided that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) would govern the interpretation and enforcement of dispute resolution procedures.  Additionally, the parties agreed that the arbitrator would have the exclusive authority to determine threshold questions of arbitrability. 

Under the FAA, a court must compel arbitration if: (1) a written arbitration agreement exists, and (2) the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. (Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.)  To show that an arbitration agreement exists, Defendant submits a declaration from Ryan Buoscio, who is employed as Defendant’s Sr. Program Manager, Safety & Core Services + CLO Tech Operations.  (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 2.)  Buoscio declares that Uber is a technology company that develops and maintains digital multi-sided marketplace platforms that connect users with businesses and individuals including drivers, hotels, airlines, restaurants, healthcare providers, and retailers.  (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 4.)  Rasier is a subsidiary of Uber.  (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 6.)  One of these marketplace platforms is the Rides platform,  (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 5.)  Riders download the rider version of the Uber App and drivers download the driver version of the Uber App and together, the platform facilitates the connection of individuals in need of a ride with individuals willing to provide transportation services.  (Ibid.) 

Buoscio attaches a copy of an in-app blocking pop-up screen which was presented to Plaintiff on or about May 12, 2022 when he accessed the Uber Rides app.  (Buoscio Decl., Ex. A.)  The screen’s header states: “We've updated our terms.”  (Ibid.)  It also states in large type, “We encourage you to read our Updated Terms in full” and under that message had the phrases “Terms of Use” and “Privacy Notice,” which were displayed underlined and in bright blue text, all of which sets the text apart from other text on the screen and indicated a hyperlink.  (Ibid.)  When a user clicked either hyperlink, the Terms of Use or Privacy Notice, respectively, were displayed.  (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 7.)  The screen further states: “By checking the box, I have reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice.”  (Buoscio Decl., ¶ 8.)  Buoscio authenticates a copy of Plaintiff’s rider account sign-up date and consent record, which confirms that Plaintiff clicked the checkbox and tapped “Confirm.”  (Buoscio Decl., Ex. B.)  Buoscio also attaches a copy of the Terms that went into effect on or about April 4, 2022, which Plaintiff agreed to.  (Buoscio Decl., Ex. C.)  These terms contain an arbitration agreement in which Plaintiff agreed to resolve any claim that he has against Uber and its subsidiaries on an individual basis in arbitration, including accidents resulting in personal injury  (Id., Section 2.) 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Uber has met its burden to produce prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy underlying this action.  “‘If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then ... the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement.” (Trinity v. Life Ins. Co. of North America (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1120.)  “If the opposing party produces such evidence, then ‘the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.’  [Citation.]”  (Ibid.)  

Here, Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and did not challenge the authenticity of the agreement.  Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.  The action is STAYED.  The Court further sets a status conference re: arbitration proceedings for April 18, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.