Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Case No. 22-CV-61452-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT
`
`ANSEL DAVIS, an individual,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`a California corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`MOTION TO COMPEL INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION
`
`Christopher Shand
`Florida Bar No. 125121
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`100 N. Tampa St., Suite 2900
`Tampa, FL 33602
`T: 813-202-7100 | F: 813-221-8837
`cshand@shb.com
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Uber Rider App................................................................................................ 1
`
`Plaintiff’s Uber Rider Account and Consent to Uber’s Terms ............................... 2
`
`III.
`
`The Operative Terms and the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement ............................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Trigger a Valid and Enforceable Arbitration Agreement
`Governed By the Federal Arbitration Act. .............................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff agreed to individual arbitration and reaffirmed that
`agreement on multiple occasions. ............................................................... 7
`
`The arbitrator must decide the scope of arbitration here. ......................... 12
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Fall Squarely Under the Scope of the Arbitration
`Agreement ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`III.
`
`The Court Should Stay This Action Pending Arbitration. .................................... 15
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION ............................................................................... 15
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ...........................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Attix v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC,
`35 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................11
`
`Babcock v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020) ..........................................................14, 15, 20
`
`Bazemore v. Jefferson Cap. Sys., LLC,
`827 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
`75 Cal. App. 4th 832, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 540 (1999) ..................................................................12
`
`Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna,
`546 U.S. 440 (2006) ...........................................................................................................11, 18
`
`Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC,
`No. 19-62408-CIV, 2021 WL 1325868 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2021) ............................................15
`
`Cordas v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`228 F. Supp. 3d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................16
`
`Cubria v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`242 F. Supp. 3d 541 (W.D. Tex. 2017)....................................................................................17
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Dye v. Tamko Bldg. Prod., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 675 (11th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................13
`
`Epps-Stowers v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-06652-RS, 2019 WL 3430566 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) ....................................16
`
`Fialek v. I.C. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-136-J-39MCR, 2019 WL 660824 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2019) ............................15
`
`Grice v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. CV-18-2995-PSG-GJSX, 2020 WL 497487 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2020)..............................16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 4 of 21
`
`Healy v. Honorlock Inc.,
`No. 21-81912-CIV, 2022 WL 2352482 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2022) ..........................................15
`
`Henry Schein, Inc., v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.,
`139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) ...............................................................................................................18
`
`Indep. Living Res. Ctr. San Francisco v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-06503-RS, 2019 WL 3430656 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) ....................................16
`
`Ingram v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 3:20-cv-00037, 2020 WL 2733726 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2020) .....................................16
`
`Jacobs v. Chadbourne,
`733 F. App’x 483 (11th Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Jones v. Waffle House, Inc.,
`866 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................................19
`
`Kohutek v. Bird Rides Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-833-RP, 2020 WL 4192266 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2020) ........................................16
`
`Kolodziej v. Mason,
`774 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................12
`
`Lambert v. Austin Ind.,
`544 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Leusch v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 3:19-CV-00772-L-JLB, 2019 WL 5594923 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019) ............................16
`
`Matteo v. Bird Rides Inc.,
`No. BC709628, 2018 WL 8545861 (Cal. Super. Nov. 28, 2018) ............................................17
`
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017).......................................................................................................16
`
`Moses H. Cone v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ...............................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Otis v. Arise Virtual Sols., Inc.,
`No. 12-62143-CIV, 2013 WL 12106056 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2013) .........................................14
`
`Parnell v. CashCall, Inc.,
`804 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Pendergast v. Spring Nextel Corp.,
`691 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 5 of 21
`
`Perry v. Thomas,
`482 U.S. 483 (1987) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Phillips v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-3382-S, 2019 WL 4861435 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019) .........................................16
`
`Prods. Inc. v. Flying Cork Media, LLC,
`No. 20-23493-CIV, 2020 WL 9601879 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2020) ..........................................14
`
`Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson,
`561 U.S. 63 (2010) .............................................................................................................17, 18
`
`Richemond v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ....................................................................................14
`
`Samuels v. Bird Rides, Inc.,
`No. SA-19-CV-01025-JKP-HJB, 2020 WL 4557054 (W.D. Tex. June 6,
`2020) ........................................................................................................................................16
`
`Schuster v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 8:18-CV-2389-T-35JSS, 2019 WL 545441 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019) ..............................15
`
`Suarez v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 8:16-CV-166-T-30MAP, 2016 WL 2348706 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2016),
`aff’d, 688 F. App’x 777 (11th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................16
`
`Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC,
`360 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2018) ...................................................................................15
`
`Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
`489 U.S. 468 (1989) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Walker v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-574-RP, 2020 WL 703268 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2020) .......................................16
`
`West v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-3001-PSG-GJS, 2018 WL 5848903 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) .............................16
`
`Statutes
`
`9 U.S.C.S. § 3.............................................................................................................................9, 20
`
`9 U.S.C. § 2 ..........................................................................................................................9, 10, 18
`
`9 U.S.C. § 5 ....................................................................................................................................10
`
`Americans with Disability Act .......................................................................................................19
`
`9 U.S.C. § 1 ......................................................................................................................................5
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 6 of 21
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) respectfully requests the Court enter an order
`
`compelling the Plaintiff Ansel Davis (“Plaintiff” or “Davis”) to arbitrate the claims Plaintiff now
`
`asserts in this action and staying this matter to permit the parties to arbitrate their dispute.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and
`
`encompasses the issues in dispute. When Plaintiff created a rider account on Uber’s website
`
`registration page, he agreed to Uber’s Terms and Conditions and thus agreed to arbitrate any claims
`
`against Uber related to his use of Uber’s services, including the claims he now asserts in this action.
`
`He has since expressly reaffirmed that agreement on several occasions. Filing this action in federal
`
`court violated the parties’ agreement.
`
`While the scope of the Arbitration Agreement clearly encompasses the claims asserted, to
`
`the extent Plaintiff asserts the claims are outside the scope of the arbitration provision, Plaintiff
`
`must raise that issue before the arbitrator because the Arbitration Agreement contains a “delegation
`
`clause” leaving all issues, including those relating to the enforcement, interpretation, and validity
`
`of the agreement, to the arbitrator. Nevertheless, if the Court decides to consider arbitrability,
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are clearly in the scope of the agreement. Uber raised the arbitration clause with
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel prior to filing this motion and Plaintiff has not dismissed this action. Thus,
`
`Uber respectfully asks this Court to compel this matter to individual arbitration, and stay this Court
`
`action pending completion of individual arbitration.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Uber Rider App
`
`Uber is a global technology company that develops and maintains proprietary software,
`
`including the smartphone applications, the Uber Rider App and Uber Driver App. See Declaration
`
`of Chiarra Davis (“Davis Decl.”), ¶ 3. The use of the Uber Rider App, including requesting and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 7 of 21
`
`paying for rides, requires the creation of an Uber Rider account. Id. at ¶ 4. An Uber Rider account
`
`can be created on a webpage or in the Uber Rider App, and requires the user to input certain
`
`information and agree to Uber’s Terms and Conditions (also referred to as the “Terms of Service”
`
`or the “Terms of Use,” and hereafter, the “Terms”). Id.
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiff’s Uber Rider Account and Consent to Uber’s Terms
`
`Plaintiff created his Uber Rider account, and agreed to Uber’s Terms, on July 15, 2016
`
`through Uber’s website. Id. at ¶ 6. The operative Terms at the time Plaintiff created his Uber
`
`Rider account had gone into effect on January 2, 2016 and remained in effect at the time of his
`
`registration on July 15, 2016. Id. at ¶ 10, Ex. A. Between July 15, 2016 and August 3, 2022, the
`
`date Plaintiff filed his Complaint, Uber updated its Terms several times. Id. at ¶ 10. Uber provided
`
`repeated notice of its updated Terms to its users, including Plaintiff. See id. at ¶¶ 11-12, 14-15,
`
`17. Plaintiff consented to Uber’s updated Terms each time he received that notice.
`
`For instance, on January 15, 2021, Uber emailed riders throughout the country, including
`
`Plaintiff, recommending that they, and he, review Uber's Terms, including the Arbitration
`
`Agreement. See id. at ¶¶ 12-14; Exs. C-D. The updated Terms were available via blue hyperlinks.
`
`Id. at ¶ 14. Furthermore, on January 20, 2021, riders throughout the country, including Plaintiff,
`
`were presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen – a screen that required certain action before
`
`a user could proceed past the screen. That blocking screen said in large, black, bold font: “We
`
`encourage you to read our updated Terms in full,” followed by two phrases, “Terms of Use” and
`
`“Privacy Notice,” which appeared in bright blue, underlined text, and were hyperlinked to the
`
`respective policies. Id. at ¶ 15; Ex. E. The pop-up screen also required the rider to check a box
`
`and click “Confirm,” indicating the rider’s acceptance of the updated Terms. Id. at ¶ 15; Ex. E.
`
`Importantly, next to the checkbox was the language “By checking the box, I have reviewed and
`
`agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice,” in bold, black font, followed by
`2
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 8 of 21
`
`“I am at least 18 years of age.” Id. at ¶ 16; Ex. E. After selecting the checkbox indicating the
`
`rider was agreeing to the updated Terms, they had to click a “Confirm” button to continue past the
`
`screen. Id. at ¶ 16. If riders did not check the box or click “Confirm,” indicating they agree to
`
`Uber’s updated Terms and Privacy Notice, they could not continue to use the Uber Rider App. Id.
`
`at ¶ 16. Plaintiff clicked the checkbox confirming he “reviewed and agree[d] to the Terms” on
`
`February 13, 2021. See id. ¶ 16; Ex. F.
`
`Uber updated its Terms again on April 4, 2022. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18; Ex. H. Like in January
`
`2021, riders, including Plaintiff, were presented with an in-app blocking pop-up screen requiring
`
`the riders’ consent to the updated Terms in order to continue using the Uber Rider App. Id. at ¶
`
`17; Ex. E. Likewise, the in-app blocking pop-up screen read in large, black, bold font: “We
`
`encourage you to read our updated Terms in full,” followed by two phrases, “Terms of Use” and
`
`“Privacy Notice,” which appeared in bright blue, underlined text, and were hyperlinked to the
`
`respective policies. Id. at ¶ 17; Ex. E. The pop-up screen also required the rider to check a box
`
`and click “Confirm,” indicating the rider’s acceptance of the updated Terms. Id. at ¶ 17; Ex. E.
`
`Like the January 20, 2021 in-app pop-up, next to the checkbox was the language “By checking the
`
`box, I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Notice,” in bold,
`
`black font, followed by “I am at least 18 years of age.” Id. at ¶ 17; Ex. E. After selecting the
`
`checkbox indicating the rider was agreeing to the updated Terms, they had to click a “Confirm”
`
`button to continue past the screen. Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff checked the box, confirming he “reviewed
`
`and agree[d] to the Terms” on April 8, 2022. Id. at ¶ 17; Ex. F. Importantly, the April 2022 Terms
`
`remained in effect through August 3, 2022, the date Plaintiff filed his Complaint. Id. at ¶ 18.
`
`III.
`
`The Operative Terms and the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement
`
`At the time of Plaintiff’s registration on July 15, 2016, the Terms in effect contained an
`
`arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement began with, “You agree that any dispute, claim
`3
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 9 of 21
`
`or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms . . . will be settled by binding arbitration
`
`between you and Uber[.]” See id., Ex. A, Section 6. Furthermore, Plaintiff continued to use the
`
`Uber Rider App and subsequently agreed to updated Terms, including on April 8, 2022. Id. at ¶
`
`17; Ex. F. The first paragraph of the first section of the April 2022 Terms, titled “Contractual
`
`Relationship” and appearing in larger font and bolded, includes language in capitalized letters
`
`informing the user that the Terms constitute a legal agreement between the user and Uber. See id.,
`
`Ex. H, Section 1 (“PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY, AS THEY CONSTITUTE
`
`A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND UBER.” (emphasis in original)). The Terms
`
`further indicate, in the center of the first page of the Term, that access and use of Uber’s services
`
`indicates the user’s assent to be bound by the Terms:
`
`By accessing or using the Services, you confirm your agreement to be bound
`by these Terms. If you do not agree to these Terms, you may not access or use the
`Services. These Terms expressly supersede prior agreements or arrangements with
`you regarding the use of the Services.
`
`Id., Ex. H, Section 1 (emphasis added). Importantly, Uber’s Services include access and use of
`
`the Uber Rider App. See id., Section 3 (“Uber operates a personalized multipurpose digital
`
`marketplace platform that is accessed in a number of forms, including mobile and/or web-based
`
`applications (‘Applications’). Among other things, the Uber Marketplace Platform enables you to
`
`discover and receive: (i) services rendered by Uber that facilitate your requests to independent
`
`third-party providers, including drivers and restaurants (‘Third-Party Providers’), for the purchase
`
`of services or goods, such as transportation, logistics and/or delivery services from those Third-
`
`Party Providers . . .”).
`
`Section 2 of the Terms, titled “Arbitration Agreement” and appearing in larger font and
`
`bold typeface, describes the parties’ agreement to arbitrate (hereinafter, the “Arbitration
`
`Agreement”). The very first paragraph of this section, in part, reads:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 10 of 21
`
`By agreeing to the Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim
`that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in arbitration as set
`forth in this Arbitration Agreement, and not as a class, collective, coordinated,
`consolidated, mass and/or representative action.
`
`Id., Section 2 (emphasis added). The covered disputes expressly include “any dispute, claim, or
`
`controversy in any way arising out of or relating to . . . [the user’s] access to or use of the Services
`
`at any time[.]” Id., Section 2(a). The Arbitration Agreement also sets forth terms regarding the
`
`procedure. Id., Section 2(d).
`
`Under the subsection “Rules and Governing Law,” the Arbitration Agreement provides
`
`that “[f]or disputes arising outside of California . . . the parties shall be required to meet and confer
`
`to select a neutral arbitration provider” and that if they are unable to mutually agree, “either party
`
`may invoke 9 U.S.C. § 5 to request that a court of competent jurisdiction appoint an arbitration
`
`provider[.]” Id., Section 2(c). The Arbitration Agreement further provides that its interpretation
`
`and enforcement is to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (“FAA”).
`
`Id.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Trigger a Valid and Enforceable Arbitration Agreement
`Governed By the Federal Arbitration Act.
`
`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). Thus, the FAA places arbitration
`
`agreements “upon the same footing as other contracts.” Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of
`
`Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 474 (1989) (citation omitted). It is
`
`designed “to move the parties to an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly
`
`and easily as possible.” Moses H. Cone v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 22 (1983).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 11 of 21
`
`To this end, the FAA amounts to a “congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy
`
`favoring arbitration agreements.” Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489 (1987) (quoting Moses H.
`
`Cone, 460 U.S. at 24) (emphasis added)). As the Eleventh Circuit has declared: “The FAA places
`
`arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts and sets forth a clear presumption–
`
`‘a national policy’–in favor of arbitration.” Parnell v. CashCall, Inc., 804 F.3d 1142, 1146 (11th
`
`Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); Attix v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, 35 F.4th 1284, 1294 (11th
`
`Cir. 2022) (stating that “courts must place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other
`
`contracts, and enforce them according to their terms” and remanding for trial court to compel
`
`arbitration) (quoting Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 339)).
`
`Here, the FAA governs the arbitration agreement at issue. The Arbitration Agreement
`
`Plaintiff entered into when he first created his Uber Rider account on July 15, 2016 plainly states
`
`it, which is sufficient on its own: “The Federal Arbitration Act will govern the interpretation and
`
`enforcement of this [Arbitration Agreement].” See Davis Decl., Ex. A, Section 6; see also Buckeye
`
`Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 442-43 (2006) (concluding when an 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);
`
`Pendergast v. Spring Nextel Corp., 691 F.3d 1224, 1236 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming an order
`
`compelling arbitration where the arbitration agreement expressly provided that FAA was to govern
`
`because an application of state law would be preempted by the FAA). And all of the Terms
`
`Plaintiff assented to thereafter, including the April 2022 Terms that were in effect when Plaintiff
`
`filed his Complaint, contained an Arbitration Agreement with similar provisions. See, e.g., Davis
`
`Decl., Ex. B, Section 2(c); Ex. H, Section 2(c) .
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 12 of 21
`
`Given the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, a court considering a motion to compel
`
`arbitration plays a very limited role. It determines only: (1) whether the parties entered into a
`
`valid and enforceable arbitration agreement and (2) whether the agreement encompasses the
`
`dispute at issue. See Lambert v. Austin Ind., 544 F.3d 1192, 1197 (11th Cir. 2008); Bazemore v.
`
`Jefferson Cap. Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d 1325, 1332 n.4 (11th Cir. 2016) (noting the two-step inquiry
`
`for assessing whether a dispute is subject to arbitration). 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 has been signed.” Dean
`
`Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985).
`
`Here, the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement when Plaintiff registered for an
`
`Uber Rider account and agreed to Uber’s Terms. See Davis Decl., ¶ 8; Ex. A. He then re-affirmed
`
`his acceptance of the Terms by undergoing twice, a process whereby he clicked a box to indicate
`
`his agreement to the Terms and then confirmed his election. See id. at ¶¶ 16-17. While the issue
`
`of arbitrability should be left to the arbitrator, the Arbitration Agreement in effect at the time
`
`Plaintiff filed his Complaint encompassed the dispute at issue as it expressly includes disputes
`
`arising from Plaintiff’s use of Uber’s Services. See id., Ex. H, Section 2(a)(1).
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff agreed to individual arbitration and reaffirmed that agreement on
`multiple occasions.
`
`Plaintiff was presented with a conspicuous arbitration agreement and voluntarily assented
`
`to it. Assent can be manifested in several ways, including by the acts, conduct, words, or
`
`performance of the party. See Kolodziej v. Mason, 774 F.3d 736, 745 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Under
`
`the objective standard of assent, we do not look into the subjective minds of the parties; the law
`
`imputes an intention that corresponds with the reasonable meaning of a party's words and acts.”);
`
`Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 75 Cal. App. 4th 832, 850, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 540 (1999). By
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 13 of 21
`
`registering for an Uber Rider account, making selections that acknowledged his assent to the
`
`Terms, and continuing to use Uber’s Services, Plaintiff repeatedly affirmed his agreement to
`
`arbitrate with Uber. Regardless of whether Plaintiff claims to have read the Terms, he is bound
`
`by them. See Jacobs v. Chadbourne, 733 F. App’x 483, 485 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Put simply, Florida
`
`law assumes that a party to a contract knows the terms of the contract but does not require that a
`
`party read it.”); Dye v. Tamko Bldg. Prod., Inc., 908 F.3d 675, 683–84 (11th Cir. 2018) (reasoning
`
`that consumers who purchased, opened, and
`
`retained a product were bound by
`
`warranty terms conspicuously printed on product's packaging whether they actually read them or
`
`not).
`
`As outlined above, prior to using Uber’s Services, Plaintiff registered for an Uber Rider
`
`account on July 15, 2016. See Davis Decl., ¶ 6. In doing so, Plaintiff assented to Uber’s Terms in
`
`effect at that time. See id. at ¶ 8; Ex. A. Plaintiff was under no obligation to create an Uber Rider
`
`account and did so voluntarily, thereby agreeing to Uber’s Terms.
`
`Plaintiff reaffirmed his agreement to arbitrate with Uber several times thereafter. First, on
`
`January 20, 2021, after receiving an email from Uber as part of a nationwide process that applied
`
`to all U.S. riders indicating that the Terms had been updated and should be reviewed, Plaintiff was
`
`presented with a pop-up blocking screen in the Uber Rider App. See id. at ¶¶ 12-16; Exs. C-F.
`
`This pop-up blocking screen prohibited Uber Rider App users from proceeding past the pop-up
`
`until they took the required action – checking the “I agree” box – which indicated Uber’s Terms
`
`had been updated and that, by checking the box on the screen, the user was acknowledging that
`
`they had reviewed and agree to the updated Terms. See id. at ¶ 16; Ex. E. Plaintiff checked the
`
`box and tapped “Confirm” on February 13, 2021. Id. at ¶ 16; Ex. F. Plaintiff did the same again
`
`on April 8, 2022, accepting Uber’s updated Terms by selecting the checkbox. Id. at ¶ 17; Ex. F.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 14 of 21
`
`Plaintiff has continued to use the Uber Rider App, including a trip completed as recently as October
`
`27, 2022. Id. at ¶ 19; Ex. I.
`
`Notably, every version of Uber’s Terms that may be relevant to the instant case contain
`
`similarly conspicuous language indicating the agreement to arbitrate and expressly state that
`
`access or use of Uber’s Services confirms the user’s agreement to the Terms. See, e.g. id.,
`
`Exs. A, B, H.
`
`The Arbitration Agreement found within Uber’s Terms effective at the time Plaintiff filed
`
`his Complaint is set forth clearly and conspicuously. At the bottom of the first page of the Terms,
`
`capitalized language clearly indicates that the Terms contain an arbitration agreement that will
`
`bind users that accept the Terms. See id., Ex. H. This language also indicates the importance of
`
`the Arbitration Agreement, as the paragraph begins with the disclaimed “IMPORTANT:” and ends
`
`with an express acknowledgement that the user take time “to consider the consequences of this
`
`important decision.” Id. Furthermore, the language of the Arbitration Agreement expressly limits
`
`the resolution of any dispute, claim, or controversy to arbitration and expressly excludes resolution
`
`of claims within a court of law. Id.
`
`Courts in this district have upheld arbitration agreements containing similar or identical
`
`language to that of the Arbitration Agreement in the instant case. See Babcock v. Neutron
`
`Holdings, Inc., 454 F. Supp. 3d 1222, 1234-35 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020); Richemond v. Uber
`
`Techs., Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (compelling arbitration of action filed
`
`by Uber employee who acceded to the terms of various contracts through his mobile device);
`
`Accord Prods. Inc. v. Flying Cork Media, LLC, No. 20-23493-CIV, 2020 WL 9601879, at *4 n.1
`
`(S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2020); Otis v. Arise Virtual Sols., Inc., No. 12-62143-CIV, 2013 WL 12106056,
`
`at *2-4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2013).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 15 of 21
`
`Courts within this district routinely uphold agreements that require a user to consent to
`
`terms or conditions by clicking a button to register or create an account or where the terms are
`
`otherwise contained within a conspicuous hyperlink. See Babcock, 454 F. Supp. 3d at 1227, 1231
`
`(upholding the arbitration provision when it was accessible by clicking the “blue boldface
`
`hyperlink to the User Agreement’s terms (where the user could read the full Arbitration
`
`Provision)” and the user had to click an “unambiguous warning that ‘by tapping I Agree,’ the user
`
`confirms that he or she ‘read and agreed to [the] User Agreement,’ is conspicuous enough”);
`
`Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC, No. 19-62408-CIV, 2021 WL 1325868, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9,
`
`2021) (reasoning that “Charnis manifested his assent by clicking the “BOOK NOW” button, which
`
`confirmed that he read and agreed to the Rental Jacket's terms and conditions, as displayed by the
`
`hyperlinked text in orange, which stands out against the white background” and compelling
`
`arbitration); Healy v. Honorlock Inc., No. 21-81912-CIV, 2022 WL 2352482, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June
`
`29, 2022) (compelling arbitration where a student clicked a checkbox to agree to Honorlock's
`
`hyperlinked Terms of Service and Privacy Policy in order to use software).
`
`Courts outside this district similarly uphold such agreements. See, e.g., Schuster v. Uber
`
`Techs., Inc., No. 8:18-CV-2389-T-35JSS, 2019 WL 545441, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019)
`
`(upholding arbitration agreement agreed to during account creation); Fialek v. I.C. Sys., Inc., No.
`
`3:18-CV-136-J-39MCR, 2019 WL 660824, at *1 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2019) (upholding
`
`arbitration agreement contained in Terms and Conditions where customer had to verify that she
`
`read and agreed to the terms), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-136-J-39MCR,
`
`2019 WL 2206968 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2019); Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, 360 F. Supp.
`
`3d 1289, 1305 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (upholding arbitration agreement contained in hyperlinked Terms
`
`and Conditions where user was cautioned that clicking button would indicate acceptance to
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 0:22-cv-61452-WPD Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Pa