Smythe v. Uber Techs., Inc.
Decision Date | 08 June 2018 |
Docket Number | A149891 |
Citation | 24 Cal.App.5th 327,233 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ryan SMYTHE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
William L. Stern, Claudia M. Vetesi, San Francisco, Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Defendant and Appellant
R. Parker White, William L. Brelsford, Sacramento, Poswall, White, & Brelsford, Jeffrey D. Fulton, Law Office of Jeffrey D. Fulton, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Respondent
Siggins, J.Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of an action brought by Ryan Smythe in his capacity as a driver for Lyft, Inc. (Lyft). Smythe also drives for Uber. The court correctly found the action is beyond the scope of Smythe's arbitration agreement with Uber, so we affirm.
BACKGROUND
During the relevant period Smythe worked as a driver for both Uber and Lyft, Inc., Uber's direct competitor. His complaint alleges that Uber engaged in a practice of directing its drivers and others to create and use fake Lyft accounts to request rides, thereby sending Lyft drivers on wild goose chases to pick up nonexistent passengers. According to the complaint, Uber did this to discourage drivers from driving for Lyft and cause Lyft customers to steer their patronage to Uber. The complaint asserted causes of action for unfair business practices and intentional interference with prospective economic damage on behalf of a putative class of Lyft drivers affected by the alleged scheme.
Uber moved to compel arbitration and stay the class claims. According to Uber, when Smythe became a driver on the Uber platform he signed two agreements containing arbitration provisions with Uber-related entities (the Rasier Agreements). The more recent and operative agreement, dated November 2014, states, "[t]his Arbitration Provision applies to any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement or termination of the Agreement." The agreement goes on to specify that it applies
The agreement includes a delegation clause specifying that the disputes subject to arbitration
The trial court found Smythe's allegations were beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the delegation provision was unenforceable in the context of the claims advanced in Smythe's complaint.
Uber filed this timely appeal from the court's order.
DISCUSSION
Uber asserts the court erred by adjudicating the threshold question of whether the arbitration provision covers Smythe's complaint. In Uber's view, "Because the Arbitration Provision delegates the issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator, this Court should direct the trial court to leave all of Mr. Smythe's arbitrability questions for the arbitrator to decide in the first instance." Alternatively, Uber urges us to reverse the trial court's decision and remand with an instruction to compel arbitration because, it asserts, Smythe's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision. We disagree.
We recognize the strong public policy in favor of arbitration and that we resolve any doubts in favor of arbitration. ( Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 890, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 ( Aanderud ); Bono v. David (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1062-1063, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 837.) Moreover, the party opposing arbitration bears the burden to show the arbitration provision cannot be interpreted to cover the claims asserted in the complaint. But, " ‘[t]here is no public policy ... that favors the arbitration of disputes which the parties did not agree to arbitrate.’ " ( Bono v. David, supra , at p. 1063, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 837 )
Qualcomm Inc. v. Nokia Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2006) 466 F.3d 1366 ( Qualcomm ) provides the analytic framework where, as here, the parties' agreement delegates the power to decide arbitrability of a dispute to an arbitrator. ( Id . at p. 1371.)
But if, on the other hand, ( Qualcomm, supra , 466 F.3d at p. 1371 ; Zenelaj v. Handybook Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 82 F.Supp.3d 968, 975.) A delegation clause will be given effect when there is a plausible argument that the arbitration agreement requires the merits of the claim to be arbitrated, and cases where an assertion of arbitrability is "wholly groundless" are exceptional. ( Kubala v. Supreme Production Services, Inc. (5th Cir. 2016) 830 F.3d 199, 202 & fn. 1 ( Kubala ).) California law is consistent with federal law on this question. ( Qualcomm, supra, 466 F.3d at 1372, citing Dream Theater, supra , at p. 553, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ; see McCarroll v. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters (1957) 49 Cal.2d 45, 65, 315 P.2d 322.)
The evidence in the trial court was not conflicting, so our review of the trial court's ruling on arbitrability is de novo. ( Aanderud, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 890, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 ; Qualcomm, supra, 466 F.3d at p. 1371.)
There is no dispute that parties to arbitration agreements are generally free to delegate to an arbitrator, instead of a court, questions regarding the enforceability of their agreement. (See, e.g., Aanderud, supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 891–892, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 225.) Nor is it subject to dispute that the agreement at issue here includes a delegation provision that commits threshold questions regarding the application and enforceability of the arbitration provision to the arbitrator. For that reason, we need not dwell on Uber's extensive arguments on these issues, and instead accept the point. The question, rather, is whether Uber's assertion of arbitrability here is "wholly groundless" because the issues raised in Smythe's complaint are patently beyond the scope of the parties' agreement to arbitrate. (See Qualcomm, supra , 466 F.3d at 1371 ; see Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 252, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 359, 376 P.3d 506 [].)
We readily conclude the arbitration agreement cannot apply to this action. By its terms, Uber's arbitration provision applies to disputes "arising out of or related to" the Rasier agreements and "disputes arising out of or related to [the driver's] relationship" with Uber. But Smythe's action against Uber has nothing to do with the Rasier agreements or his rights and responsibilities as an Uber driver. To the contrary, Smythe brought his action in his capacity as a driver for Lyft, not Uber, and alleges only that he and other Lyft drivers incurred expenses and lost income when they responded to fraudulent ride requests generated at Uber's instigation. There is no "plausible argument" ( Kubala, supra, 830 F.3d at p. 202 ) that those claims are related to or arise out of the agreements Smythe entered into with Uber...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
B.D. v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc.
...to an arbitrator, instead of a court, questions regarding the enforceability of their agreement." ( Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 327, 332, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 ; see Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc. (2019) ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 524, 529, 202 L.......
-
Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC
...expressly delegated that question to the arbitrator . ( Schein, supra, 139 S.Ct. at pp. 528-529 ; Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 327, 332, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 895.) But Schein explicitly "reject[ed] th[is] ‘wholly groundless’ exception" to determinations of arbitrabilit......
-
Scott v. Windsor Sacramento Estates, LLC
...is de novo. There is no conflict in the evidence and we independently interpret the contract. (Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 327, 332; Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 890; see also Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th ......
-
Goldman v. Holl
...of Palo Alto v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2016)5 Cal.App.5th 1271, 1318.) We reject defendants' reliance on Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 327 for the same reason. Smythe was decided before defendants filed their reply brief. Defendants have offered no justif......
-
Class Actions
...of an agent of a party to the arbitration clause, and it was not a third party beneficiary of the arbitration clause.").24. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 327.25. Id. at 329-330.26. (2018) Cal.App.5th 784.27. Section 1 of the FAA expressly exempts from its coverage all "contracts of employment of se......