throbber
Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
`Todd D. Carpenter (CA SBN 234464)
`tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
`Scott G. Braden (CA SBN 305051)
`sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
`1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel:
`619-762-1910
`Fax: 619-756-6991
`HINDMAN APC
`Jesse Hindman (CA SBN 222935)
`jesse@hindmanapc.com
`402 W. Broadway, Suite 1520
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel:
`619-255-4078
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT UBER
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Date: April 16, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Dept: Courtroom 5 – 2nd Floor
`Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`ERIN NORMAN,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NEUTRON
`HOLDINGS, INC., DOING BUSINESS UNDER
`THE NAME LIME, SOCIAL BICYCLES LLC
`DOING BUSINESS AS JUMP BIKES, AND
`ZHEJANG OKAI VEHICLE CO., LTD.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`3.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 1
`III. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`The Arbitration Agreement Violates McGill Because It Forecloses Plaintiff from
`Seeking Public Injunctive Relief in Any Forum ....................................................... 2
`1.
`McGill Applies to and Bars the Public Injunctive Relief Waiver .................... 2
`2.
`The Arbitration Agreement Does Not Permit Public Injunctive Relief
`Through Arbitration of Plaintiff’s Individual Claims ..................................... 3
`Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief Claim Is Properly Alleged Against Uber ............. 5
`i.
`Plaintiff Seeks Public Injunctive Relief ............................................. 5
`ii.
`Plaintiff’s Claim for Public Injunctive Relief is Proper
`Notwithstanding Uber’s Purported Sale of Jump to Lime ................... 9
`This Court May Consider the Threshold Question of Arbitrability........................... 11
`B.
`Plaintiff’s Strict Product Liability Claims Are Protected by McGill ......................... 13
`C.
`The Court Should Not Stay Non-Arbitrable Claims Pending Arbitration of Others ... 14
`D.
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`68 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.1995) .............................................................................................................. 5
`Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P.,
`203 Cal. App. 4th 771 (2012) .......................................................................................................... 11
`Arias v. Superior Court,
`46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) ....................................................................................................................... 4
`Aviles v. Quik Pick Express, LLC,
`No. CV-15-5214-MWF (AGR), 2015 WL 9810998 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) ............................... 12
`Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., No. C,
`17-02335 WHA, 2017 WL 4805577 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)................................................ 3, 6, 7
`Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
`928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... passim
`Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California,
`21 Cal. 4th 1066 (1999) ..................................................................................................................... 6
`Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human, Res.,
`532 U.S. 598 (2001) ......................................................................................................................... 10
`Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`226 F. Supp. 3d 983 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................................................. 15
`Cottrell v. AT&T Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-07672-JCS, 2020 WL 2747774 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2020) .............................................. 8
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................................... 10
`DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc.,
`No. 20-55058, 2021 WL 647502 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2021) ........................................................ 3, 4, 5
`Eiess v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 1240 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................................... 15
`Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.,
`24 Cal. 2d 453 (1944) ...................................................................................................................... 14
`Freeman v. ABC Legal Servs., Inc.,
`877 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ......................................................................................... 9, 10
`Gingras v. Think Finance, Inc.,
`922 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................................ 12
`Greenman v. Yuba Power Prod., Inc.,
`59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963) ........................................................................................................................ 14
`i
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page
`
`Cases (cont.)
`Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer &White Sales, Inc.,
`139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) ................................................................................................................. 12, 13
`Higgins v. Superior Ct.,
`140 Cal. App. 4th 1238 (2006) ........................................................................................................ 10
`Ingalls v. Spotify USA, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6679561 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) ................................................................................ 11
`Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. 17-cv-2477, 2018 WL 4726042 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) ....................................................... 7
`Lee v. Postmates Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-03421-JCS, 2018 WL 4961802 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)........................................... 15
`Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
`398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................................... 15
`McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`772 F. App’x 575 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 4
`McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`No. 09-CV-01117-CW, 2017 WL 4354998 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2017)........................................... 3, 4
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ................................................................................................................ passim
`Meadows v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants Inc.,
`144 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................... 12
`Money Mailer, LLC v. Brewer,
`No. 15-1215, 2016 WL 1393492 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2016) ........................................................ 12
`Rent–A–Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson,
`561 U.S. 63 (2010) ........................................................................................................................... 11
`Sponheim v. Citibank,
`No. SACV 19-264 JVS (ADSx), 2019 WL 2498938 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) .............................. 8
`Tillage v. Comcast Corp.,
`772 F. App’x 569 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 4
`Vargas v. Delivery Outsourcing, LLC,
`No. 15-03408, 2016 WL 946112 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) .......................................................... 12
`Wright v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`No. SACV 16-01688, 2017 WL 4676580 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017) ................................................. 8
`
`
`
`ii
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page
`
`Statutes
`9 U.S.C. § 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 13
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 ............................................................................................................ 4
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535 ............................................................................................................ 4
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382 ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL STANDING ORDER
`Plaintiff Erin Norman (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of herself and the general public
`against Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), arising from allegations that Uber’s rental scooters,
`which lack a signal mechanism, place riders in the predicament of turning without a signal in violation of
`California law or following the law with a dangerous hand signal, endangering riders and the public at
`large, and which ultimately caused Plaintiff’s own significant personal injuries. Plaintiff seeks damages
`for her injuries as well as public injunctive relief to enjoin this ongoing public safety hazard.
`Uber moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, arguing Plaintiff delegated the decision
`on arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the California Supreme Court decision McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) does not apply to her claims. Uber is wrong on both counts. As Plaintiff asserts:
`(1) the arbitration agreement violates McGill by barring injunctive relief all fora—it relegates any
`“dispute, claim or controversy” to arbitration, while limiting “declaratory and injunctive relief … only to
`the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by the claimant’s individual claim” and “preclude[ing]
`[Plaintiff] from bringing any class, collective, or representative action.” Gaddis Decl. Ex. A at 9, 11
`(emphasis added). See Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 928 F.3d 819, 831 (9th Cir. 2019) (language in an
`arbitration agreement that prohibits a dispute from being “brought, heard or arbitrated as a class,
`collective, mass, private attorney general, or representative action ... precludes the arbitrator from
`awarding public injunctive relief.”) (emphasis added); (2) Plaintiff properly seeks public injunctive relief
`that would enjoin Uber from renting scooters “until the public is properly warned about the scooter
`vehicles’ inherently dangerous condition, and/or until the scooter vehicles’ defective turn signaling
`system is replaced or rectified” First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) (“FAC”), Prayer for Relief ¶ C;
`(3) Uber’s contention that there is “nothing to enjoin” is meritless as it admits “consumers continue to
`have access to dockless e-bikes and e-scooters through [Uber’s] app.” See Uber Technologies (2021)
`Form 10-K 2020, p. 37 (retrieved from https://seekingalpha.com/filing/5401978); (4) this Court should
`determine arbitrability because the delegation clause does not present a “clear and unmistakable” intent
`to delegate the question of arbitrability; (5) Plaintiff’s strict product liability claims fall within the purview
`of McGill and likewise cannot be waived; and (6) Plaintiff’s non-arbitrable claims should not be stayed.
`For these reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Uber’s motion to compel arbitration.
`
`
`
`i
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This action highlights and seeks to remediate an ongoing threat to public safety regarding the
`use of defectively designed electric scooters rentable through Defendant Uber Technology, Inc.’s
`(“Uber”) smartphone application. Because the scooters lack turning signals, riders cannot legally
`perform a turn without performing a dangerous hand signal, required by California law. First Amended
`Complaint (ECF No. 27) (“FAC”) ¶¶ 27-37. Plaintiff Erin Norman (“Plaintiff”) seeks recompense for
`her injuries due to this and an injunction to remove the scooters from use until the public is properly
`warned about their inherently dangerous condition, and/or until their defective turn signaling system is
`corrected. FAC, Prayer for Relief ¶ C. Uber moves to compel all claims to arbitration by misconstruing
`Plaintiff’s claims as well as the applicability of McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017). As set
`forth below, the arbitration agreement violates McGill by waiving public injunctive relief, which
`Plaintiff properly alleges against Uber, in all fora. Further, the “delegation clause” Uber seeks to
`enforce does not present “clear and unmistakable” intent to delegate the question of arbitrability.
`Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 37) (“Motion” or “Mot.”) should be denied.
`PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`Plaintiff filed this action on September 24, 2020 (ECF No. 1) and the operative FAC on
`December 21, 2020. ECF No. 27. The FAC brings several causes of action against Uber arising from
`the use of Uber’s rental scooters, which lack a signal mechanism and place riders in the predicament
`of violating California law requiring a signal before turning or performing a dangerous hand signal.
`Riders are not warned of this dangerous condition. FAC ¶ 123. As a result of the design defects, failure
`to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligence of Uber, Plaintiff was severely
`injured while riding a Jump scooter and operating it in a manner prescribed by the laws of California.
`Plaintiff’s suit seeks both a public injunction against Uber enjoining it from selling or leasing scooters
`in the State of California without first providing the necessary warnings and/or safe means of legal
`operation, and to compensate her for significant personal injuries. On March 9, 2021, Uber filed the
`instant Motion. ECF No. 37.
`
`
`
`1
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`The Arbitration Agreement Violates McGill Because It Forecloses Plaintiff from Seeking
`Public Injunctive Relief in Any Forum
`
`McGill Applies to and Bars the Public Injunctive Relief Waiver
`1.
`Under California law, “a provision in any contract ... that purports to waive, in all fora, the
`statutory right to seek public injunctive relief under the UCL [or] the CLRA ... is invalid and
`unenforceable.” McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at 962.1 The threshold issue is whether Uber’s arbitration agreement
`purports to waive a plaintiff’s right to seek public injunctive relief under the UCL in all fora, and here,
`the answer is yes.
`First, the arbitration agreement broadly mandates “any dispute, claim or controversy” be
`submitted to “binding arbitration between you and JUMP, and not in a court of law.” Gaddis Decl.,
`Ex. A. at 9, 11. ECF No. 37-4. Second, the arbitration agreement prohibits Plaintiff from seeking public
`injunctive relief at arbitration by declaring any arbitration will be conducted “on an individual basis
`[which] will preclude [Plaintiff] from bringing any class, collective, or representative action”, language
`the Ninth Circuit has understood to prohibit public injunctive relief. See Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
`928 F.3d 819, 831 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that language in an arbitration agreement that prohibits a
`dispute from being “brought, heard or arbitrated as a class, collective, mass, private attorney general,
`or representative action ... precludes the arbitrator from awarding public injunctive relief.”) (emphasis
`added). The arbitration agreement reenforces its preclusion of an award of public injunctive relief in
`arbitration by specifying, “[t]he Arbitrator may award declaratory and injunctive relief only in favor
`of the claimant and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by the claimant’s
`individual claim.” Gaddis Decl., Ex. A. at 11 (emphasis added); see also id. (permitting Uber to
`“compel arbitration of any remaining claims on an individual basis . . .”) (emphasis added).
`This language closely resembles Citibank’s arbitration provision at issue in McGill, which
`stated, “[c]laims must be brought in the name of an individual person or entity and must proceed on an
`individual (non-class, non-representative) basis. The arbitrator will not award relief for or against
`
`
`1 Uber does not challenge the validity of McGill, for instance, by asserting any federal preemption
`under the Federal Arbitration Act.
`
`2
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`anyone who is not a party.” McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at 952. Both the Uber and Citibank arbitration provisions
`bar public injunctive relief using the same mechanism—i.e., by limiting relief to an individual basis to
`the exclusion of anyone who is not a party.
`Thus, because the arbitration agreement grants Uber discretion to send any dispute to arbitration
`and the arbitrator may only award “relief warranted by the claimant’s individual claim,” and not in a
`“representative action,” it deprives consumer of their ability to seek public injunctive relief in any
`forum in violation of McGill.2 See also McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 09-CV-01117-CW, 2017
`WL 4354998, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2017) (Granting plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
`holding that the defendant’s arbitration provision was unenforceable under McGill); Blair v. Rent-A-
`Ctr., Inc., No. C 17-02335 WHA, 2017 WL 4805577, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017) (holding McGill
`rendered arbitration clause unenforceable with respect to UCL claim).
`The Arbitration Agreement Does Not Permit Public Injunctive Relief Through
`2.
`Arbitration of Plaintiff’s Individual Claims
`
`Although not raised by Uber, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc.,
`No. 20-55058, 2021 WL 647502 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2021) presents an outlier ruling on the application
`of McGill but is not controlling in light of the fact that it creates a split decision within the Circuit, as
`well as mischaracterizes the California Supreme Court’s controlling interpretation of California law as
`set forth in McGill. Under California law, claims for public injunctive relief constitute a
`“representative” action—and not an “individual” action—for purposes of applying the McGill rule.
`The Ninth Circuit has already indicated that a private plaintiff who pursues public injunctive
`relief does so in a “representative capacity,” finding in Blair that language in an arbitration agreement
`that prohibits a dispute from being “brought, heard or arbitrated as a class, collective, mass, private
`attorney general, or representative action ... precludes the arbitrator from awarding public injunctive
`relief.” Blair, 928 F.3d at 831 (emphasis added).
`
`
`2 Notwithstanding this plain language, Uber argues, “nothing in the Rental Agreement requires Plaintiff
`to waive her right to seek public injunctive relief” (Mot. at 15), as if an explicit clause stating “the
`arbitrator may not award public injunctive relief” were the only possible way to affect this result. The
`Court should rebuff Uber’s attempt to retroactively disguise the arbitration agreement’s true meaning
`in its Motion.
`
`3
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Similarly, in McArdle, 772 F. App’x 575 (mem.), the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed a
`district court’s holding that an arbitration agreement violated McGill where it prohibited plaintiffs from
`bringing claims “as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class action or representative
`proceeding.” McArdle, 2017 WL 4354998, at *4 (emphasis added); see also Tillage v. Comcast Corp.,
`772 F. App’x 569 (9th Cir. 2019), (deeming similar categories of claims to bar public injunctive relief).
`Meanwhile, DiCarlo suggests that the “McGill court made clear that a litigant proceeding as an
`‘individual’ ‘on his or her own behalf’ may ‘request[] public injunctive relief’”, and on this basis held
`that an arbitration agreement which bars a plaintiff from acting as a private attorney general does not run
`afoul of McGill and instead permits public injunctive relief claims to be pursued through an individual
`action in arbitration. But this is a mischaracterization of the reasoning and ruling in McGill. DiCarlo,
`2021 WL 647502, at *6.
`McGill only held “that a request for such relief does not constitute the ‘pursu[it]’ of
`‘representative claims or relief on behalf of others’ within the meaning of Business and Professions
`Code sections 17203 or 17535, such that ‘compli[ance] with Section 382 of the Code of Civil
`Procedure’ is required.” 2 Cal. 5th at 959–60 (emphasis added). That comment was a reference to the
`“threshold issue” of whether a private plaintiff could even seek public injunctive relief under
`California’s Proposition 64, which stated that a plaintiff can “pursue representative claims or relief on
`behalf of others only if [they] meet[ ] [these] standing requirements ... and compl[y] with Section 382
`of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`§§ 17203, 17535). As McGill explained, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382 “imposes a requirement that the
`action be brought as a class action.” 2 Cal. 5th at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
`Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 978 (2009)).
`Thus, rather than hold that a private plaintiff who seeks public injunctive relief is not acting in
`a “representative capacity” as a general matter, McGill merely held that Proposition 64 only amended
`the standing requirements to seek restitution, not injunctive relief, and therefore that a private plaintiff
`can seek public injunctive relief whether or not the case is certified as a class action. 2 Cal. 5th at 960
`(“[W]e find nothing in the ballot materials for Proposition 64 suggesting an intent to link or restrict
`such relief to the class action context.”); see also Blair, 928 F.3d at 828 (“In McGill, the California
`
`
`
`4
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:20-cv-06700-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-06700-JSW Document 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`Supreme Court expressly held that claims for public injunctive relief need not comply with state-law
`class procedures.”) (citing McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at 960).
`Indeed, the arbitration provision at issue in McGill—which even the defendant conceded
`prohibited public injunctive relief, 2 Cal. 5th at 956—stated that “the arbitrator may award relief only
`on an individual (non-class, nonrepresentative) basis,” and prohibited the plaintiff from pursuing “a
`class action, private attorney general action or other representative action.” Id. at 952 (emphasis added).
`In short, McGill is consistent with Blair (as well as McArdle and Tillage) in holding that a
`private plaintiff who seeks public injunctive relief does so in a representative capacity. Accordingly,
`the provision in Uber’s arbitration agreement that prohibits a plaintiff from seeking public injunctive
`relief in any fora, is a “provision related to a ... representative action” that is “unenforceable” under
`McGill. Accordingly, McGill, and not DiCarlo, is the controlling authority on this issue of California
`contract law.3 See Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that the Ninth
`Circuit is bound to follow the holdings of the California Supreme Court when applying California law).
`Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief Claim Is Properly Alleged Against Uber
`3.
`Uber argues Plaintiff’s public injunctive relief claim is improperly alleged against Uber because
`(1) Plaintiff merely seeks “compensation for her injury,” with her public injunctive relief claim being
`offered in name only, and (2) Uber no longer owns the “Jump” scooter business, leaving “nothing to
`enjoin.” Mot. at 13-15. The first argument misconstrues the FAC, while the second presents a question
`of fact not relevant to the arbitration determination.
`Plaintiff Seeks Public Injunctive Relief
`i.
`McGill applies here because Plaintiff plainly seeks public injunctive relief in the FAC. In
`McGill, the California Supreme Court broadly acknowledged that an injunction to prevent the
`defendant “from continuing to conduct business via ... unlawful, fraudulent or unfair business acts and
`practices,” qualifies as “public injunctive relief” under California law. 2 Cal. 5th at 955 (emphasis
`added). Indeed, the telltale indicia of public injunctive relief is whether the injunction would confer a
`benefit on unsuspecting members of the public by protecting them from harm they might otherwise
`
`
`3 Furthermore, DiCarlo is critically distinguishable on the facts as unlike here, the arbitration
`agreement in that case included an “all-remedies” clause, empowering the arbitrator to issue all
`remedies available to courts. See DiCarlo, 2021 WL 647502, at *3.
`5
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`suffer in the future. Id. (“[P]ublic injunctive relief under the UCL, the CLRA, and the false advertising
`law is relief that has ‘the primary purpose and effect of’ prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future
`injury to the general public.”) (quoting Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California, 21 Cal. 4th 1066,
`1077 (1999)); Blair, 2017 WL 4805577, at *3 (“[W]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under [the
`UCL and CLRA], their benefits ‘by and large do not accrue to that party, but to the general public in
`danger of being victimized by the same deceptive practices as the plaintiff suffered.’”) (quoting
`Broughton, 21 Cal. 4th at 1080), aff’d, Blair, 928 F.3d at 819.
`Here, Plaintiff seeks an injunction under the UCL compelling Uber to “remove the scooter
`vehicles from use until the public is properly warned about their inherently dangerous condition and/or
`until the scooter vehicles’ defective turn signaling system is replaced or rectified.” FAC, Prayer for Relief
`¶ C. See also ¶¶ 1, 115, 122-127.4 Such relief would undeniably confer a public benefit by removing from
`use the scooters that are currently rentable through Uber’s app until the public receives proper warning
`about their inherently dangerous condition and/or until the scooters feature a functional turn signaling
`system. Not only would this benefit scooter users, but all pedestrians and motorists on public
`thoroughfares who encounter them.5 Moreover, correcting these deceptive and unsafe features also
`benefits consumers’ ability to make safe and rational choices regarding their method of travel.
`Compared to the facts of McGill, it is clear that Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of the “general
`public” and not merely as “compensation for her injury.” In McGill, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
`relief for Citibank’s deceptive misrepresentations in advertising credit protector plans to Citibank credit
`card holders. Only Citibank credit card holders were able to purchase the credit protector plan, and thus
`according to Uber’s blinkered logic, only Citibank credit card holders would benefit from the injunctive
`
`
`4 Uber conveniently ignores these paragraphs as well as the fact that Plaintiff’s entire eighth cause of
`action is dedicated to public injunctive relief.
`5 See Trivedi, T. K. et al (2019). Injuries Associated With Standing Electric Scooter Use. JAMA
`Network Open, 3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2722574 (“Of the
`249 patients, 228 (91.6%) were riders and 21 (8.4%) were nonrider pedestrians.”); Yasmin Khorram,
`CDC says there’s an epidemic of e-scooter injuries that could easily be prevented, CNBC, May 1,
`2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/cdc-study-says-e-scooter-injuries-are-largely-preventable-
`with-helmets.html (“The majority of injuries occurred on the street, with 29% connected to first-time
`riders and 18% involving motor vehicles.”); Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance Unit. (2019).
`Dockless Electric Scooter-Related Injuries Study, 7. Austin Public Health. https://www.austintexas.gov
`/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_Study_5-2-19.pdf
`(“Sixteen percent of the incidents with injured riders involved a motorized vehicle. These incidents
`include colliding and swerving, stopping, and jumping off the scooter to avoid a collision.”)
`6
`OPPOSITION TO 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 46 Filed 03/23/21 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`relief the plaintiffs sought. However, the Court rejected Citibank's argument that the plaintiffs were not
`truly seeking public injunctive relief, explaining, “we disagree with Citibank that McGill has failed
`adequately to . . . explain how the public at large would benefit from [the injunctive] relief.” McGill, 2
`Cal. 5th at 957. In so holding, the Court based its decision, in part, on the request for an injunction to
`prevent Citibank from continuing to use “advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive
`information, and material omissions” in violation of the CLRA and UCL when advertising its credit
`protection plan to its cardholders. Id. at 956-57.
`Here, like McGill, Plaintiff sues under the UCL, alleging Uber “knowingly sold, leased or
`rented scooters that were unsafe for their intended use on public roads or knowingly provided
`inadequate or misleading product literature.” FAC, ¶ 123. Thus, like McGill, the relief sought here
`would enjoin the dissemination of misleading and harmful product literature. See id. (“Defendants’
`product literature fails to provide adequate warnings of danger or instructs riders to operate the scooters
`in an unsafe manner.”). Indeed, the relief sought here presents a far stronger case for qualifying as
`“public injunctive relief” than McGill because the scooters available through Uber’s app endanger
`scooter riders and all others who come into their path.
`Yet, in the face of Plaintiff’s robust public injunctive relief al

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket