Saizhang Guan v. Uber Techs., Inc.
Decision Date | 23 February 2017 |
Docket Number | 16–CV–598 (PKC) (CLP) |
Citation | 236 F.Supp.3d 711 |
Parties | SAIZHANG GUAN and Longbin Li, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Anne Seelig, C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Adam James Hunt, David John Fioccola, Tiffani B. Figueroa, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs are car service drivers ("drivers") who have brought this lawsuit, as a putative class action, alleging breach of contract by DefendantUber Technologies, Inc.("Defendant" or "Uber").Before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and this action is stayed pending arbitration.
Uber is a technology company that allows drivers and potential riders to connect through a smartphone application (the "Uber App"). .)1In New York City, before drivers can use the Uber App to find riders, they must enter into an agreement with Uber USA, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber.(Id.at ¶ 7).Drivers using the Uber App can hire other drivers to transport riders on their behalf under their Uber accounts.(Id. )But all drivers must accept a "Driver Addendum," which incorporates by reference the operative arbitration provision.(Id. )
When Plaintiffs signed up to use the Uber App,2 the operative agreement was the "Software License and Online Services Agreement dated April 3, 2015(the "April 2015 Services Agreement") along with the Driver Addendum to Software License and Online Services Agreement dated November 10, 2014(the "November 2014 Driver Addendum").(Colman Decl., Exs. C & D.)New drivers had to accept these agreements to begin working.(ColmanDecl., at ¶ 8.)The April 2015 Services Agreement contained a clause stating that Uber could "modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement or the Driver Addendum at any time" and that "by using the Uber Services, or downloading, installing, or using the Driver app, Customer [i.e. , the driver] is bound by any future amendments and additions to this Agreement."(Colman Decl., Ex. C, at§ 14.1.)
On or about December 11, 2015, Uber issued an updated Services Agreement and Driver Addendum (Colman Decl., Exs. E & F, ("December 2015 Services Agreement" and "December 2015 Driver Addendum")), and once again drivers had to accept the updated Agreement and Addendum to continue working.(ColmanDecl., at ¶ 9.)The two Services Agreements are substantially similar, in relevant part.3The first page of the December 2015 Services Agreement contains a paragraph in bold, capitalized text, alerting the reader to the relevant arbitration provision ("Arbitration Provision"), which is provided in full later in the December 2015 Services Agreement:
IMPORTANT: PLEASE NOTE THAT TO USE THE UBER SERVICES AND THE ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE, YOU MUST AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW.PLEASE REVIEW THE ARBITRATION PROVISION SET FORTH BELOW IN SECTION15.3 CAREFULLY, AS IT WILL REQUIRE YOU TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH UBER ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 15.3, THROUGH FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF THE ARBITRATION PROVISION.BY VIRTUE OF YOUR ELECTRONIC EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING SECTION 15.3) AND HAVE TAKEN TIME TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS DECISION.IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION, YOU MAY OPT OUT OF THE ARBITRATION PROVISION BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION15.3 BELOW.
(Colman Decl., Ex. E.)The Arbitration Provision itself starts on page 16 of the Services Agreement (if viewed on a computer), and is eight pages long.It contains the following paragraph in bold, capitalized text:
(Id. at § 15.3.)In a subsection labeled "IMPORTANT," the Arbitration Provision informs drivers that they will be required to "resolve any claim that [they] may have against Uber on an individual basis, except as provided below, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement unless [they] choose to opt out of the Arbitration Provision," and that the provision "preclude[s][them] from bringing any class, collective, or representative actions [except under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") ] against Uber" or from participating in any such actions.(Id. )
It specifies that "[u]nless the law requires otherwise, as determined by the Arbitrator based upon the circumstances presented, [the driver][would] be required to split the cost of any arbitration with Uber."(Id. ).In a subsection entitled "Paying for the Arbitration," this provision is further qualified:
Each party will pay the fees for his, her or its own attorneys, subject to any remedies to which that party may later be entitled under applicable law (i.e., a party prevails on a claim that provides for the award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party).In all cases where required by law, Uber will pay the Arbitrator's and arbitration fees.If under applicable law Uber is not required to pay all of the Arbitrator's and/or arbitration fees, such fee(s) will be apportioned equally between the Parties or as otherwise required by applicable law.However, You will not be required to bear any type of fee or expense that You would not be required to bear if You had filed the action in a court of law.4Any disputes in that regard will be resolved by the Arbitrator as soon as practicable after the Arbitrator is selected, and Uber shall bear all of the Arbitrator's and arbitration fees until such time as the Arbitrator resolves any such dispute.
Id. at § 15.3(vi).
The Arbitration Provision further provides:
The Arbitration Provision also contains a "delegation clause," stating that the arbitrator will decide questions about the validity and scope of the arbitration clause itself, i.e. , questions of "arbitrability":
Except as provided in Section 15.3(v), below, regarding the Class Action Waiver, such disputes [that will be decided by arbitration] include without limitation disputes arising out of or relating to interpretation or application of this Arbitration Provision, including the enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the Arbitration Provision.All such matters shall be decided by an Arbitrator and not by a court or judge.However, as set forth below, the preceding sentences shall not apply to disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Class Action Waiver or PAGA Waiver below, including their enforceability, revocability or validity.Except as it otherwise provides, this Arbitration Provision also applies, without limitation, to all disputes between You and Uber ....
(Id. )
Lastly, the Arbitration Provision also includes an "opt-out" provision, stating:
[to listed address] ... within 30 days of the date this Agreement is executed ....
(Id. )
In order to use the Uber App to receive transportation requests, Uber drivers had to click on a "YES, I AGREE" box twice to indicate assent to Uber's Services Agreement.5(ColmanDecl., at ¶ 8.)Before going online, drivers were directed to a page titled, "TERMS AND CONDITIONS", which said on the top "TO GO ONLINE, YOU MUST REVIEW ALL THE DOCUMENTS BELOW AND AGREE TO THE CONTRACTS BELOW." There was no time limit for drivers to review the contracts, which were available by hyperlink on the same page.On the bottom of the page, there was a clickable blue box with the large, capitalized...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paragon Litig. Trust v. Noble Corp. PLC (In re Paragon Offshore PLC)
...(citing Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. , 73 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 537 N.Y.S.2d 787, 534 N.E.2d 824 (1988) ; Saizhang Guan v. Uber Techs., Inc., 236 F.Supp.3d 711, 729 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).112 Id. at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2772.113 Rent-A-Center , 561 U.S. at 70-71, 130 S.Ct. 2772.114 MacDonald v. CashCall......
-
Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC
...adverse consequences." Tsadilas v. Providian Nat. Bank , 13 A.D.3d 190, 786 N.Y.S.2d 478, 480 (2004). Accord Saizhang Guan v. Uber Tech., Inc. , 236 F.Supp.3d 711, 731 (E.D.N.Y.) (collecting cases) ("Courts applying New York law have considered an opt-out provision as an important, if not d......
-
Boursiquot v. United Healthcare Servs. of Del., Inc.
...3d 507, 522-523 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ; Kai Peng v. Uber Techs., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 36, 53 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ; Saizhang Guan v. Uber Techs., Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 711, 728 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ; Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc., 226 F. Supp. 3d 983, 988 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ; Micheletti v. Uber Techs., Inc.,......
-
Armor All/STP Prods. Co. v. Tsi Prods., Inc., 3:17-cv-1131 (MPS)
...provisions, it was obvious that the carve-out provision did not apply to the issue at hand. See, e.g., Saizhang Guan v. Uber Techs., Inc. , 236 F.Supp.3d 711, 727-28 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (question of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator where arbitration clause provided that, with the excep......