Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`Annie Y.S. Chuang (SBN: 196307)
`achuang@shb.com
`Joan R. Camagong (SBN: 288217)
`jcamagong@shb.com
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`One Montgomery, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: 415-544-1900
`Facsimile: 415-391-0281
`Attorneys for Defendant
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ERIN NORMAN,
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NEUTRON
`HOLDINGS, INC. SEGWAY, INC. WHICH
`WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS
`SEGWAY INC. OF DELAWARE, NINEBOT,
`INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
`ZHUHAI XIAOMI COMMUNICATIONS CO.
`LTD., and XIOAMI CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Date:
`April 16, 2021
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 5 – 2nd Floor
`Dept.:
`Judge:
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4832-9745-2255 v1
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No.: 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 16, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable
`Jeffrey S. White in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor of the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`(“Uber”) will and hereby does seek an order compelling Plaintiff Erin Norman to submit her claims
`against Uber to arbitration and staying this action under the FAA and the Court’s inherent authority
`pending completion of individual arbitration.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the accompanying memorandum
`of points and authorities, the Declarations of Todd Gaddis, Tin Dinh, and Joan R. Camagong and
`exhibits attached thereto, filed concurrently herewith, all pleadings and papers on file in this action,
`and such further evidence and argument as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter.
`
`Dated: March 9, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`
`By: /s/ Joan R. Camagong
`ANNIE Y.S. CHUANG
`JOAN R. CAMAGONG
`Attorney for Defendant
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No.: 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`Annie Y.S. Chuang (SBN: 196307)
`achuang@shb.com
`Joan R. Camagong (SBN: 288217)
`jcamagong@shb.com
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`One Montgomery, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, California 94104-4505
`Telephone: 415-544-1900
`Facsimile: 415-391-0281
`Attorneys for Defendant
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`ERIN NORMAN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NEUTRON
`HOLDINGS, INC. SEGWAY, INC. WHICH
`WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS
`SEGWAY INC. OF DELAWARE, NINEBOT,
`INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
`ZHUHAI XIAOMI COMMUNICATIONS CO.
`LTD., and XIOAMI CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`OF MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION
`Date:
`April 16, 2021
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 5 – 2nd Floor
`Dept.:
`Judge:
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 4
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5
`I. The Federal Arbitration Act governs the arbitration agreement. ........................................ 5
`II. The arbitration agreement is valid and must be enforced pursuant to the FAA
`including the parties’ agreement to arbitrate “gateway” issues of arbitrability. ................. 6
`A. Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate threshold questions of arbitrability. ................................... 7
`B. Even if the Court finds that it, rather than the arbitrator, should decide arbitrability,
`both gateway issues are satisfied. ....................................................................................... 9
`III. McGill does not apply and is otherwise inapposite. ......................................................... 12
`A. Whether McGill applies and what impact it may have is properly delegated to the
`arbitrator. ........................................................................................................................... 12
`B. Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim is improperly alleged against Uber and in any
`event seeks only private injunctive relief. ......................................................................... 13
`C. The arbitration agreement does not waive public injunctive relief. ............................. 15
`IV. The Court should stay this action...................................................................................... 15
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`i
`
`UBER’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases ........................................................................................................................................... Page(s)
`
`Aanderud v. Superior Court,
`13 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2017) ..........................................................................................................13
`
`American Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,
`785 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) .........................................................................................................6
`
`AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) .....................................................................................................................4, 6
`
`AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America,
`475 U.S. 643 (1986) .........................................................................................................................7
`
`Babcock v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020) ............................................................................10
`
`Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`668 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................................................5
`
`Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
` No. C 17-02335 WHA, 2017 WL 4805577 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017) ...................................14, 15
`
`Brennan v. Opus Bank,
`796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna,
`546 U.S. 440 (2006) .....................................................................................................................5, 8
`
`Chico v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.,
`No. CV 14-5740-JFW, 2014 WL 5088240 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014) ............................................11
`
`Chiron v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
`207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .........................................................................................................6
`
`Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 52 (2003) ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`Cooper v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-06742-BLF, 2019 WL 5102609 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019)..........................................13
`
`Cordas v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`228 F. Supp. 3d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .......................................................................................6, 10
`
`ii
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`Crook v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-03669-WHO, 2013 WL 11275036 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013) ......................................9
`
`Cubria v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`242 F. Supp. 3d 541 (W.D. Tex. 2017)..........................................................................................11
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`Delgado v. Progress Fin. Co.,
`No. 1:14-cv-00033-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 1756282 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2014) ................................12
`
`DeVries v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-2953-WHO, 2017 WL 2377777 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2017) .........................................13
`
`First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan,
`514 U.S. 938 (1995) .......................................................................................................................11
`
`Freeman v. ABC Legal Servs., Inc.,
`877 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................13, 14
`
`Garcia v. Enter. Holdings, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...........................................................................................11
`
`Garcia v. Kakish,
`No. 17-CV-0374-JLT, 2017 WL 2773667 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2017)...........................................13
`
`Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.,
`139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) .......................................................................................................................7
`
`Holl v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-05856-HSG, 2017 WL 11520143 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011) ........................................10
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litig.,
`185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................9, 10
`
`Ingram v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 3:20-cv-00037, 2020 WL 2733726 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2020) ...........................................10
`
`Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. 17-cv-2477, 2018 WL 4726042 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) ...................................................14
`
`Kin Wah Kung v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,
`No. C 18-00452 WHA, 2018 WL 2021495 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2018)............................................6
`
`Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark,
`137 S.Ct. 1421 (2017) ......................................................................................................................4
`
`Kohutek v. Bird Rides Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-833-RP, 2020 WL 4192266 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2020) ..............................................10
`iii
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`Koyoc v. Progress Fin. Co.,
`No. CV 13-09165-RSWL, 2014 WL 1878903 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2014) ......................................12
`
`Marin Storage & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco Contracting & Eng’g, Inc.,
`89 Cal. App. 4th 1042 (2001) ..........................................................................................................9
`
`Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`586 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1978) .........................................................................................................15
`
`Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.,
`514 U.S. 52 (1995) ...........................................................................................................................5
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ...............................................................................................................13, 15
`
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017).............................................................................................................10
`
`Moffett v. Recording Radio Film Connections, Inc.,
`No. CV 19-3319 PSG, 2019 WL 6898955 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) .............................................13
`
`Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) .........................................................................................................7
`
`Momot v. Mastro,
`652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................8
`
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Communications, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) .........................................................................................................................5, 7
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Peter v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-06098-JST, 2020 WL 1967568 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) ..........................................10
`
`Phillips v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-3382-S, 2019 WL 4861435 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019) ...............................................10
`
`Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC,
`55 Cal. 4th 223 (2012) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson,
`561 U.S. 63 (2010) .......................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Revitch v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-2974-PSG-GJS, 2018 WL 6340755 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) ...................................13
`iv
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`Samuels v. Bird Rides, Inc.,
`No. SA-19-CV-01025-JKP-HJB, 2020 WL 4557054 (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2020) .........................10
`
`Sanfilippo v. Tinder, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-08372-AB, 2018 WL 6681197 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) ..........................................7
`
`Sponheim v. Citibank,
`No. SACV 19-264 JVS (ADSx), 2019 WL 2498938 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) ..........................14
`
`Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
`805 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...........................................................................................10
`
`United States v. Sutcliffe,
`505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Walker v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-574-RP, 2020 WL 703268 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2020) .............................................10
`
`West v. Uber Techs.,
`18-CV-3001-PSG-GJS, 2018 WL 584903 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) ............................................10
`
`Wright v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`No. SACV 16-01688, 2017 WL 4676580 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017) .............................................14
`
`v
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL STANDING ORDER
`Before she rented her first Jump scooter, Plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate any claims
`against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) including the claims she brings here. As part of that
`agreement, the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability, including the
`scope of the arbitration provision and any defenses thereto, to the arbitrator. AT&T Techs., Inc. v.
`Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer &
`White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 529 (2019) (courts may not override delegation clauses).
`Accordingly, the Court’s inquiry should end and Plaintiff’s claims against Uber should be compelled
`to arbitration.
`Even if the Court finds that it, rather than the arbitrator, should decide arbitrability, a valid
`agreement to arbitrate exists and encompasses the issues in dispute. Plaintiff accepted the terms of
`the agreement after being presented with the agreement in its entirety. She therefore assented to be
`bound by its terms and entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with Uber. The
`agreement also broadly defines the scope of arbitrable disputes to include “any dispute, claim or
`controversy arising out of or relating to … th[e] Agreement …. or [Plaintiff’s] access to or use of
`the [Jump] Services at any time...” Gaddis Decl., ¶ 7 & Ex. A, § 8(b) (emphasis added). Plaintiff
`brought this lawsuit, alleging she was injured while renting a Jump scooter. FAC. ¶¶49-55.
`Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be arbitrated.
`Finally, Plaintiff’s “public injunctive relief” claim is improperly made against Uber. Indeed,
`she concedes that Uber sold Jump to Lime in May 2020 and no longer owns any Jump bikes or
`scooters. FAC ¶ 2. Thus, Plaintiff cannot seek public (or any) injunctive relief against Uber as there
`is nothing to enjoin. Setting this aside, however, whether McGill applies and what impact it may
`have is properly delegated to the arbitrator pursuant to the agreement’s delegation provision. Revitch
`v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 18-CV-2974-PSG-GJS, 2018 WL 6340755, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018)
`(“[W]here there is a delegation provision, as there is here, the public injunctive relief question is
`reserved to the arbitrator.”); Cooper v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 18-cv-06742-BLF, 2019 WL 5102609,
`at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019).
`Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Uber should be compelled to arbitration.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`i
`
`UBER’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This action arises out of injuries Erin Norman allegedly sustained after falling off a Jump
`scooter she rented in San Francisco, CA. Prior to renting the scooter, Erin Norman expressly agreed
`to arbitrate any claims against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) including the claims she now
`asserts in this action. Accordingly, this action should not proceed in the current forum and must be
`stayed to permit Uber and Plaintiff to engage in arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims as agreed.
`This motion to compel individual arbitration should be granted. First, the policies,
`procedures, and preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) apply to the arbitration
`agreement at issue. Second, the arbitrator must determine the scope of the arbitration agreement
`because it contains a “delegation clause” leaving all issues, including those relating to the scope and
`interpretation of the agreement, to the arbitrator. Third, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and
`encompasses the issues in dispute. Fourth, the “public injunctive relief” claim is a red herring as to
`Uber as Plaintiff acknowledges that Uber sold Jump and therefore there is nothing to enjoin against
`Uber. Thus, Uber respectfully moves this Court for an order compelling this matter to individual
`arbitration, and staying this action under the FAA and the Court’s inherent authority pending
`completion of individual arbitration.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Uber is a global technology company that uses its proprietary technology to develop and
`maintain digital multi-sided platforms—one of those platforms was the Jump Application (“Jump
`App”). Todd Gaddis Declaration (“Gaddis Decl.”), ¶ 2; Tin Dinh Declaration (“Dinh Decl.”), ¶ 2.
`Uber owned the Jump App from approximately May 2018 to May 2020. Dinh Decl., ¶ 2; First
`Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 2. Through the Jump App, individuals could locate and rent nearby
`Jump light electric vehicles (“LEV”) such as e-bikes and scooters. Gaddis Decl., ¶ 2; Dinh Decl., ¶
`2. Upon a user’s first attempt to rent a Jump LEV via the Jump App, they would be prompted to
`accept the Light Electric Vehicle Rental Agreement (“Rental Agreement”). A user would not be able
`to rent a Jump LEV without first entering into this written contract, which contained a binding
`arbitration provision, assumption of risk, release and waiver of liability clause. Gaddis Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6,
`Ex. A.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1
`
`UBER’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`Based upon Uber’s records kept in the normal course and scope of business, Norman
`accepted the terms of the Rental Agreement on August 27, 2019, prior to renting her first LEV
`through the Jump App. Dinh Decl., ¶¶ 4-11.
`Upon opening the Jump App, Norman would have had access to a map on her screen that
`showed nearby bikes and scooters available for rent. Id., ¶ 7. Upon locating and selecting the LEV
`she wanted to rent, a “SCAN TO RIDE” button would appear on her screen. Id., ¶ 8. Upon clicking
`on “SCAN TO RIDE” she would have been prompted to scan the QR code on the LEV she wanted
`to rent. Id. Once Norman scanned the LEV QR code, she would have been prompted to select a
`payment method. Id., ¶ 9. After confirming a payment method, she would have then been taken
`directly to the Rental Agreement as shown below:
`
`Id., ¶ 10. The Rental Agreement was scrollable and available for full review. Id. Based upon review
`of Uber’s records, Plaintiff voluntarily accepted the Rental Agreement by tapping the “Accept and
`Continue” button on August 27, 2019 at 13:43 UTC. Norman could not have rented a LEV without
`first agreeing to the Rental Agreement. Id., ¶ 11; Gaddis Decl., ¶ 3.
`The Rental Agreement Norman agreed to contains a notice of arbitration and waiver
`provisions on the first page:
`
`“THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS RELEASES, DISCLAIMERS, AND
`ASSUMPTION-OF-RISK PROVISIONS AND A BINDING ARBITRATION
`
`2
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 12 of 25
`
`AGREEMENT THAT LIMITS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
`FOR MORE DETAILS, PLEASE REFER TO SECTIONS 6 AND 8 BELOW.”
`Gaddis Decl., ¶ 6 & Ex. A, Rental Agreement (capitalization in original). Section 8 of the Rental
`Agreement includes the mandatory arbitration provision, providing in relevant part:
`[Y]ou agree that you are required to resolve any claim that you may have
`against JUMP, its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates (including, without
`limitation, Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates), on an
`individual basis in arbitration, as set forth in the Arbitration Agreement. This
`will preclude you from bringing any class, collective, or representative action
`against JUMP, and also preclude you from participating in or recovering relief
`under any current or future class, collective, consolidated, or representative
`action brought against JUMP by someone else.
`
`(a) Agreement to Binding Arbitration Between You and JUMP.
`You and JUMP agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or
`relating
`to (a)
`this Agreement or
`the existence, breach,
`termination,
`enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, or (b) your access to or use of
`the Services at any time, whether before or after the date you agreed to the
`Terms, will be settled by binding arbitration between you and JUMP, and
`not in a court of law.
`You acknowledge and agree that you and JUMP are each waiving the right to a
`trial by jury …
`Gaddis Decl., ¶ 6 & Ex. A, § 8(emphasis added).
`
`The arbitration provision of the Rental Agreement also grants the Arbitrator the right to
`decide issues of arbitrability:
`
`The parties agree that the arbitrator (“Arbitrator”), and not any
`federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive
`authority to resolve any disputes relating to the interpretation,
`applicability, enforceability or formation of this Arbitration
`Agreement, including any claim that all or any part of this Arbitration
`Agreement is void or voidable. The Arbitrator shall also be
`responsible for determining all threshold arbitrability issues,
`including issues relating to whether the Terms are unconscionable or
`illusory and any defense to arbitration, including waiver, delay,
`laches, or estoppel.
`
`Id., § 8(b) (emphasis added).
`
`On October 29, 2019, Norman alleges she sustained personal injuries while operating a LEV
`she rented through the Jump App. FAC ¶¶ 51-55.
`On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of herself and a California class
`of individuals “who will rent one of Defendant’s scooters.” Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶ 54. On December 21,
`2020, after meeting and conferring about Uber’s anticipated motion to compel arbitration, Plaintiff
`3
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`filed her FAC eliminating her putative class claims and adding a claim for public injunctive relief
`(even though Uber no longer owns Jump as she acknowledged in her FAC). FAC ¶¶ 2, 121-127. She
`seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when operating a Jump scooter through the Jump
`App. FAC ¶¶ 51-55. Her overarching theory is that “[i]f an electric scooter rider takes his or her
`hand off the handlebars to signal … as the California Vehicle Code requires, the rider’s risk of losing
`control and crashing is greatly increased.” FAC ¶ 25. She claims that Jump’s scooters are inherently
`dangerous because of a rider’s “inability to signal … without attempting to operate the scooter with
`one hand.” FAC ¶ 65.
`She asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence/gross negligence (Id. ¶¶ 56-62), (2) strict
`products liability – design and manufacturing defect (Id. ¶¶ 63-73), (3) strict product liability –
`failure to warn of defective condition (Id. ¶¶ 74-81), (4) negligent products liability (Id. ¶¶ 82-92),
`(5) negligent misrepresentation (Id. ¶¶ 93-99), (6) breach of implied warranty (Id. ¶¶ 100-109), (7)
`Violation of Unfair Competition Law Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. for restitution
`(Id. ¶¶ 110-120), (8) Violation Unfair Competition Law Business and Professions Code § 17200 et
`seq for public injunctive relief (Id. ¶¶ 121-127). Uber’s counsel requested that Plaintiff submit her
`claims to arbitration. (Camagong Decl. at ¶ 2). Plaintiff refused, necessitating this motion.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that a written arbitration provision in any
`contract “involving commerce … shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
`grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v.
`Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2). It reflects a liberal federal policy
`favoring arbitration, and requires that arbitration agreements be rigorously enforced. See Kindred
`Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1424 (2017) (courts required “to place
`arbitration agreements on an equal footing with all other contracts”) (citations omitted). “[T]he
`FAA’s purpose is to give preference (instead of mere equality) to arbitration provisions.” Mortensen
`v. Bresnan Communications, LLC, 722 F.3d 1151,1160 (9th Cir. 2013). To this end, the FAA
`“leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district
`courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement
`4
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985).Thus, “courts must
`‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that ‘specify
`with whom [the parties] choose to arbitrate their disputes,’ and ‘the rules under which that arbitration
`will be conducted.’” American Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013)
`(emphasis omitted). “As arbitration is favored, those parties challenging the enforceability of an
`arbitration agreement bear the burden of proving that the provision is unenforceable.” Mortensen,
`722 F.3d at 1157.
`
`ARGUMENT
`The Federal Arbitration Act governs the arbitration agreement.
`I.
`As a threshold matter, the arbitration agreement at issue here is indisputably governed by the
`FAA as the parties’ agreement expressly provides that the FAA “will govern [the] interpretation and
`enforcement” of the arbitration provisions. Gaddis Decl., Ex. A at § 8(b). Second, the FAA governs
`the Rental Agreement because the agreement involves interstate commerce.
`First, the arbitration agreement plainly states that it is governed by the FAA, which is
`sufficient on its own:
`
`Notwithstanding any choice of law or other provision in the Terms, the parties
`agree and acknowledge that this Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction
`involving interstate commerce and that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §
`1 et seq. (“FAA”), will govern its interpretation and enforcement and
`proceedings pursuant thereto.
`Id.; see also Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 442-43 (2006) (where
`arbitration agreement expressly provided that FAA was to govern, the FAA preempted application of
`state law and thus, under the FAA, the question of the contract’s validity was left to the arbitrator);
`Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 662-663 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding FAA governs from
`the plain language of the agreement); Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52,
`63-64 (1995) (for state law to apply exclusively to an arbitration agreement, the agreement must opt
`out of the FAA and provide that state law applies instead); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v.
`Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) (the question of arbitrability is a matter of federal
`law). The plain language of the arbitration agreement is clear, unambiguous, and shows the parties’
`
`5
`UBER’S MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-06700-JSW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 37 Filed 03/09/21 Page 15 of 25
`
`intent that the contract be governed by the FAA. To suggest otherwise would be to ignore general
`principles of contract interpretation.
`Second, the arbitration agreement “involves commerce.” Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 339.
`Indeed, the parties expressly agreed that it does. See Gaddis Decl., Ex. A § 8(b) (“...the parties agree
`and acknowledge that this Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction involving interstate
`commerce”). Setting that aside, the term “involving commerce” is interpreted broadly. See, e.g.,
`Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56 (2003) (finding FAA applied even though there was
`no substantial effect on commerce). It is the “functional equivalent of the more familiar term
`‘affecting commerce’ – words of art that ordinarily signal t