Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV01376, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01376    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a personal injury case. On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff Arthur Alemendra Cayabyab filed the Complaint against Defendants Melkon Vardini Davtyan, Palula Guadalupe Lopez, Castillo Bernardo, Lyft, Inc. and Does 1 through 50 alleging (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On September 30, 2024, defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft) move this court for an order (1) compelling contractual arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act; and (2) staying these proceedings as to Lyft. As of March 3, 2025, no opposition has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“[W]hen an agreement provides that its enforcement shall be governed by the FAA, the FAA governs a party’s motion to compel arbitration.” (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346.) Under the FAA, “any arbitration agreement within its scope shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” (Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.) An arbitration agreement that is subject to the FAA will be enforced if the following two factors are satisfied: (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; and (2) the arbitration agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. (Ibid.) If both factors are met, the court must “enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.” (Ibid.)  

“If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.” (9 U.S.C. § 3.)  

III.        DISCUSSION

          A. A Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists and Covers the Dispute at Issue

In order to use the Lyft platform, a user must create an account and assent to the terms of service. (Simmons Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Within the terms of service is an arbitration agreement. (See Exh. 3.) In fact, the very first paragraph advises the reader of the arbitration agreement (the agreement), and in paragraph 17, the agreement is presented in full to the reader. (Id.) Lyft has produced the agreement by attaching a copy in a concurrently filed evidence packet. (Id.) Lyft further provided the amended terms of service which all include the arbitration provision that Plaintiff had to consent to before using the service. (Simmons Decl. ¶¶12(a-e).)

Next, the Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement covers the dispute at issue in this litigation. The Complaint arises from Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s rideshare services. (Simmons Decl., ¶ 13; Complaint at p. 5.) The Arbitration Agreement provides that any claims arising from use of Defendant’s platform are subject to binding arbitration. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.  

In sum, the Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that such agreement covers the claims asserted against Defendant in this action. Given that Plaintiff failed to oppose the instant motion, the Court deems the lack of opposition as “a consent to the granting of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) 

IV.        CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings against Lyft pending the outcome of that arbitration.  

The Court STAYS this action as to defendant Lyft, Inc. only pending the completion of arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. (9 U.S.C. § 3.) 

Defendant Lyft, Inc. is ordered to give notice.  

Dated this 6th day of March 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.