San Francisco Superior Court grant's Lyft's Motion to Compel Arbitration leaves Class Claims Up to the Arbitrator
Defendant Lyft, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Pending
Arbitration was heard on July 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 302 of the San Francisco Superior Court. Defendant Lyft, Inc. 's motion to compel individual arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration was granted.
The assertion by Plaintiff Allyson McGee that she does not recall reading or signing the Terms and Conditions and the arbitration agreement contained therein is not a basis to avoid enforcing the agreement. (See Cox v. Bonni (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 287,301 ["when a person with capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he may not, in the absence of fraud, imposition or excusable neglect, avoid its terms on the ground he failed to read it before signing it."]; Bolanos v. Khalatian (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 15 86, 1590 [ enforcing arbitration agreement despite plaintiff declaring that she did "not remember signing it"].)
The question of the arbitrability of Plaintiffs claims has been delegated to the arbitrator and, therefore, must be decided in arbitration. Delegation clauses are enforceable so long as they are "clear
14 and unmistakable." (Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 70-71, 79 ["agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the ... court to enforce" and the FAA operates on this arbitration agreement just as it does on any other; clauses are enforceable if the delegation language is "clear and unmistakable"]; Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233,243 [who decides arbitrability is "a matter of party agreement"]; Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 892 [delegation clause by which the parties agreed to arbitrate "all disputes, claims and controversies arising out of or relating to ... the interpretation, validity, or enforceability of this Agreement, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this Section 5" provided clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator]; Malone v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1566 ["in order for a delegation clause to be enforceable, it must be clear and unmistakable"].)
Plaintiffs unconscionability arguments are unavailing because they are not directed at the delegation clause specifically. (See Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 71-75 [explaining that delegation clause is unenforceable only if the clause itself is unconscionable and that the plaintiffs general unconscionability arguments were insufficient to render the delegation clause inapplicable]; Malone, v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1560 ["if the party is making a specific challenge to the delegation clause, the court must determine whether the delegation clause itself may be enforced ( and can only delegate the general issue of enforceability to the arbitrator if it first determines the delegation clause is enforceable"].)
In any case, Plaintiff's unconscionability arguments lack merit. The arbitration agreement contains an opt out agreement and makes use of bold headings and all-caps to draw attention to waiver of certain rights. (See Mohamed v. Uber Tech., Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) 848 F.3d 1201, 1211 [despite the burdensome nature of the opt-out process and the fact the provision was buried in the agreement, Uber was bound by the opt-out process and thus the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable].) Moreover, Plaintiff fails to make any specific arguments about how the agreement is substantively unconscionable. As a result, an arbitrator must decide whether Plaintiffs claims fall within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement. These proceedings are STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4).
Class counsel intend on requesting the American Aribtration Association to allow the matter to proceed as a class case under Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233 and Nguyen v. Applied Medical Resources (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 232 as well as under the Consumer Arbitration Rules. See https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web_0.pdf
