Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`SONIA SPATES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
`BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
`SITUATED,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`x
` -----------------------------------------------------------------
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`Index No. 1:21-cv-10155
`
`Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
` ----------------------------------------------------------------- x
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`Claudia M. Vetesi
`Tiffany Cheung
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 268-7000
`CVetesi@mofo.com
`TCheung@mofo.com
`
`Adam J. Hunt
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel: (212) 468-8000
`AHunt@mofo.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Agreed to Uber’s 2017 Terms of Use When She Registered Her Account.
`................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Uber’s 2017 Terms Include an Arbitration Provision With a Delegation Clause
`and a Provision That Permits Uber to Update its Terms ........................................ 4
`
`Uber Properly Updated its Terms of Use and Plaintiff Did Not Reject the
`Changes. .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff Ignored The Arbitration Provisions and Filed Suit. .................................. 6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF MUST INDIVIDUALLY ARBITRATE HER CLAIMS. ............................. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff Agreed To Be Bound by Uber’s Terms, Which Govern Plaintiff’s
`Claims. .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`The FAA Applies To The Arbitration Provisions Contained in Uber’s Terms. ..... 9
`
`New York Law Governs Any Dispute Concerning The Enforceability Or Scope
`Of The Arbitration Provision Contained in Uber’s Terms. .................................. 10
`
`Under The FAA And New York Law, the Arbitration Provision Contained in
`Uber’s Terms of Use Is Valid And Must Be Enforced. ........................................ 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties’ Agreement requires the arbitrator to decide all issues of
`arbitrability. ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration because the “gateway” issues
`have been satisfied. ................................................................................... 15
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff entered into valid Arbitration Agreement(s). .................. 15
`
`Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely within the scope of Uber’s Terms of
`Use ................................................................................................ 16
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff Must Arbitrate Her Claims on an Individual Basis. ................................ 18
`
`II.
`
`THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR STAYED PENDING THE
`COMPLETION OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION. ..................................................... 18
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 19
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (Carter, J.) ...................................................2, 13, 14, 19
`
`Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson,
`513 U.S. 265 (1995) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) .............................................................................................................7, 11
`
`In re Am. Express Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig.,
`672 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................15
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna,
`546 U.S. 440 (2006) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Camilo v. Lyft, Inc.,
`384 F. Supp. 3d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (Carter, J.) ...................................................................10
`
`Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 52 (2003) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`Contec Corp. v. Remote Sol., Co.,
`398 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................12
`
`Cordas v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`228 F. Supp. 3d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................10
`
`Darcheal Reed v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-00596 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (attached as Ex. D to Vetesti Decl.) ..................2, 6
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) .................................................................................................................18
`
`DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia,
`577 U.S. 47 (2015) ...................................................................................................................18
`
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) .............................................................................................................18
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`Feld v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 19STCV26766 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cty., Apr. 17, 2020) (attached as
`Ex. A to Vetesti Decl.) .............................................................................................................14
`
`Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.,
`841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ......................................................................................16
`
`Guan v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`236 F. Supp. 3d 711 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) .......................................................................3, 8, 11, 14
`
`Gunn v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-1668, 2017 WL 386816 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 27, 2017) ................................................14
`
`Guyden v. Aetna, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................19
`
`Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp.,
`246 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................12
`
`Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`380 Fed. Appx. 22 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................15
`
`Horton v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.,
`804 F. App’x 81 (2d Cir. 2020) ...............................................................................................14
`
`Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark,
`137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017) ...............................................................................................................7
`
`Klein v. ATP Flight Sch., LLP,
`No. 14-CV-1522 JFB GRB, 2014 WL 3013294 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2014) ..............................10
`
`Lee v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`208 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .......................................................................................14
`
`Man Fong Wong v. 1st Disc. Brokerage, Inc.,
`No. 10 CV 1487 ENV, 2011 WL 1298857 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2011) .......................................12
`
`Matthews v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. CGC-20-584582 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. Cty., Nov. 18, 2020) (attached as
`Ex. C to Vetesi Decl.) ......................................................................................................2, 6, 14
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ...............................................................................................................14
`
`Merrick v. UnitedHealth Grp. Inc.,
`127 F. Supp. 3d 138 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ......................................................................................19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`Micheli & Shel, LLC v. Grubhub Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-4995 (JMF), 2022 WL 622828 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2022) ...............................11, 18
`
`Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,
`26 N.Y.3d 659 (N.Y. 2016) .....................................................................................................13
`
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’ns, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1151 ............................................................................................................................7
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ...............................................................................................................18, 19
`
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 14 CV 4513 (SLT)(LB), 2017 WL 10111078 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017) ..........................8
`
`O’Callaghan v. Uber Corp. of Cal.,
`No. 17 Civ. 2094 (ER), 2018 WL 3302179 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2018) ......................................15
`
`PaineWebber Inc. v. Bybyk,
`81 F.3d 1193 (2d Cir. 1996)...............................................................................................12, 13
`
`Peng v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`237 F. Supp. 3d 36 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) .......................................................................................14
`
`Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson,
`561 U.S. 63 (2010) ...................................................................................................................12
`
`Sena v. Uber Techs. Inc,
`No. CV-15-02418-PHX-DLR, 2016 WL 1376445 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2016) ............................14
`
`Southland Corp. v. Keating,
`465 U.S. 1 (1984) .......................................................................................................................7
`
`Spinelli v. Nat’l Football League,
`96 F. Supp. 3d 81 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ..........................................................................................17
`
`Starke v. Gilt Groupe, Inc.,
`No. 13 Civ. 5497(LLS), 2014 WL 1652225 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2014) ............................15, 16
`
`Suarez v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 8:16-CV-166, 2016 WL 2348706 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2016).............................................14
`
`Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP,
`726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013)...............................................................................................14, 18
`
`Totalplan Corp. of Am. v. Colborne,
`14 F.3d 824 (2d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`Varon v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-3650, 2016 WL 1752835 (D. Md. May 3, 2016) ..................................................14
`
`Whitt v. Prosper Funding LLC,
`No. 15-cv-136, 2015 WL 4254062 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015) ...........................................15, 16
`
`Statutes
`
`9 U.S.C. § 1 ......................................................................................................................................9
`
`9 U.S.C. § 2 ......................................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff filed this putative class action contending that Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”)
`
`overcharged her for rides that she requested through Uber’s smartphone application (“the Uber
`
`App”). But Plaintiff’s Complaint against Uber does not belong in this forum because when
`
`Plaintiff signed up to ride using the Uber App, she entered into a binding arbitration agreement
`
`that covers her claims in this case and bars her from pursuing a class action. Moreover, any
`
`challenge to arbitrability must be decided in the first instance by the arbitrator pursuant to a
`
`delegation clause in the arbitration agreement.
`
`In order to use Uber’s platform, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Uber that specifies
`
`the terms and conditions governing the parties’ relationship. The Terms of Use to which
`
`Plaintiff agreed in 2018 (“the 2017 Terms”) included a clear and conspicuous arbitration
`
`provision (the “Arbitration Provision”) where Plaintiff: (1) agreed to arbitrate “any dispute,
`
`claim or controversy arising out of or relating to . . . these Terms or the existence, breach,
`
`termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof . . .” or Plaintiff’s “access to or use”
`
`of Uber’s services “at any time”; and (2) waived resolution of any claims in “a class, collective,
`
`consolidated, or representative proceeding.” (Fishman Decl.,1 Ex. B.) Moreover, the 2017
`
`Terms specified that the arbitrator was to “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. Ex. B at 2.)
`
`Consistent with its 2017 Terms, Uber updated its Terms of Use several times over the course of
`
`the years Plaintiff used the Uber App, including in July 2021 (“the July 2021 Terms”), but the
`
`1 Declaration of Daniel Fishman In Support of Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed
`concurrently.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`Arbitration Provisions remained materially unchanged each time. (Id., Exs. C-D.) Thus, this
`
`dispute belongs in arbitration.
`
`Courts within this District and elsewhere have held the delegation clauses like those
`
`contained in Uber’s Terms of Use, including in the July 2021 Terms—which were in effect when
`
`Plaintiff filed this Complaint and allegedly took the one ride mentioned in the Complaint—valid
`
`and enforceable and have granted motions to compel arbitration under nearly identical
`
`circumstances. In fact, this is one of three complaints filed against Uber by Plaintiff’s counsel
`
`making copycat claims regarding alleged rider overcharges. Plaintiff’s Complaint is almost
`
`entirely recycled from a 2020 complaint that Plaintiff’s counsel filed against Uber in California
`
`state court, making the same factual allegations and seeking to avoid the same Terms of Use that
`
`Plaintiff agreed to in this case. (Vetesi Decl.,2 Ex. B.) There, the court ordered those claims to
`
`arbitration. (See id., Ex. C (Order Granting Motion to Compel, Matthews v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`No. CGC-20-584582 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. Cty., Nov. 18, 2020)).) And Plaintiff’s Complaint is
`
`strikingly similar to a complaint that Plaintiff’s counsel filed against Uber in the Northern
`
`District of California less than two months after this Complaint was filed. (See id., Ex. D
`
`(Compl., Darcheal Reed v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 22-cv-00596 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022)).)
`
`While Plaintiff’s counsel openly forum shops, Uber and this Court are now required to expend
`
`resources relitigating the same issues, which should be compelled to arbitration here just as in
`
`California.
`
`Indeed, in Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 524 F. Supp. 3d 251, 263-64 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2021), this Court granted Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration where Uber’s agreement with
`
`drivers delegated to the arbitrator all “disputes arising out of or related to this Agreement and
`
`2 Declaration of Claudia M. Vetesi In Support of Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed
`concurrently.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`disputes arising out of or related to [Plaintiffs’] relationship with Uber”—language that is nearly
`
`identical to the delegation provision contained in the July 2021 Terms. See also Guan v. Uber
`
`Techs., Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 711, 728 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (delegation clause’s language that an
`
`arbitrator will decide “disputes arising out of or relating to interpretation or application of this
`
`Arbitration Provision” clearly and unmistakably delegated the gateway issues to the arbitrator).
`
`There is no reason for this Court to reach a different conclusion.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Uber respectfully requests that the Court grant its
`
`Motion, compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims, and either dismiss or stay this action pending the
`
`outcome of the arbitration.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Agreed to Uber’s 2017 Terms of Use When She Registered
`Her Account.
`
`Uber’s technology enables riders to request rides from drivers via a smartphone
`
`application known as the “Uber App.” (Fishman Decl. ¶ 3.) But before riders may request rides
`
`and pay their drivers for those rides through the Uber App, they must create an Uber account and
`
`agree to Uber’s Terms of Use. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 9.)
`
`Plaintiff registered for an Uber rider account on August 2, 2018 via Uber’s website. (Id.
`
`¶ 6.) At that time, the website registration page required a user to input their name, email
`
`address, password (to be selected by the user), mobile phone number and promotion code (if
`
`any) into a form on a single webpage. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. A.) After completing these fields, the user
`
`could create an account by clicking the “SIGN UP” button at the bottom of the webpage. (Id.
`
`¶ 8, Ex. A.)
`
`Right below the “SIGN UP” button there was a simple and plain disclosure that informed
`
`users—including Plaintiff—that by clicking below they were “agree[ing] to the Uber Terms of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`Use and Privacy Policy.” (Id. ¶ 9.) “Uber Terms of Use” and “Privacy Policy” were displayed
`
`in bright turquoise-blue text that contrasted with the other font colors to indicate that they were
`
`hyperlinks. (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. A.) When the user clicked the “Terms of Use” hyperlink, the relevant
`
`2017 Terms then in effect would be displayed for the user. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff, like all users, was
`
`free to spend as much time as she wished reviewing the Terms of Use, including its Arbitration
`
`Provision. An account would not be created unless and until the user filled out required fields
`
`and clicked the “SIGN UP” button. (Id.) As such, Plaintiff could not have created her Uber
`
`account without agreeing to Uber’s Terms of Use. (Id.)
`
`B.
`
`Uber’s 2017 Terms Include an Arbitration Provision With a
`Delegation Clause and a Provision That Permits Uber to Update its
`Terms
`
`The Terms of Use in effect when Plaintiff signed up for an Uber account in 2018 contain
`
`an Arbitration Provision with a delegation clause and provisions permitting Uber to update its
`
`Terms of Use at any time. The very first page of the 2017 Terms included a single bolded
`
`paragraph reading, in all-capital letters:
`
`“IMPORTANT: PLEASE REVIEW THE ARBITRATION
`AGREEMENT SET FORTH BELOW CAREFULLY, AS IT
`WILL REQUIRE YOU TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH
`UBER ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS THROUGH FINAL
`AND BINDING ARBITRATION. BY ENTERING THIS
`AGREEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
`YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE
`TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND HAVE TAKEN TIME
`TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
`IMPORTANT DECISION.”
`
`(Id., Ex. B at 1.)
`
`On the next page, in a section clearly labeled “Arbitration Agreement,” Uber again
`
`explained the Arbitration Provision in bold text:
`
`“By agreeing to the Terms, you agree that you are required to
`resolve any claim that you may have against Uber on an
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`individual basis in arbitration, as set forth in this Arbitration
`Agreement. This will preclude you from bringing any class,
`collective, or representative action against Uber, and also
`preclude you from participating in or recovering relief under
`any current or future class, collective, consolidated, or
`representative action brought against Uber by someone else.”
`
`(Id., Ex. B at 2.)
`
`The 2017 Terms also included both a general change-in-terms provision, which permitted
`
`Uber to modify the terms and conditions at any time, and a more specific change provision that
`
`was applicable to the agreement to arbitrate. (Fishman Decl., Ex. B at 1, 3.)
`
`C.
`
`Uber Properly Updated its Terms of Use and Plaintiff Did Not Reject
`the Changes.
`
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Uber updated its Terms of Use periodically, including
`
`in July 2021.3 (Id., Exs. C-D.) Uber notified users of the July 2021 Terms through a popup
`
`notification that appeared when the user opened the Uber App. (Fishman Decl. ¶¶ 15-16, Ex.
`
`E.) The popup notification stated: “We’ve updated our terms,” and, in bigger text, “We
`
`encourage you to read our updated Terms in full.” (Id., ¶ 16, Ex. E.) The popup notification
`
`provided hyperlinks to both Uber’s Terms of Use, including the Arbitration Provision, and
`
`Uber’s Privacy Notice. To proceed past the popup notification, the user was required to
`
`affirmatively check a box labeled “By checking the box, I have reviewed and agreed to the
`
`Terms of Use and
`
`3 The Arbitration Provisions contained in Uber’s terms have remained largely unchanged from 2017 through 2021.
`Plaintiff’s Complaint vaguely asserts that “[o]n multiple occasions, including in September 2021, before using the
`[Uber] service [Plaintiff] was quoted a price but was ultimately charged a higher price.” (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff,
`however, does not provide the dates of any such rides. Assuming that Plaintiff’s complaint is centered on a ride that
`took place in September 2021, the July 2021 Terms that were in effect at that time are the operative terms.
`In any event, all of the terms from 2018 through 2021, including the July 2021 Terms, contain nearly identical
`Arbitration Provisions with nearly identical delegation clauses.
`
`Prior to the July 2021 Terms, Uber updated its terms of use in April 2021 (“the April 2021 Terms.). (Fishman Decl.
`¶ 13, Ex. C.) The April 2021 Terms and July 2021 Terms both make clear that Uber could provide notice of the
`changes by updating the date at the top of the terms and instructed riders that “[i]f you do not agree to the amended
`Terms, you must stop accessing and using [Uber’s] Services.”). (Id., Ex. C at 1; id., Ex. D at 2.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`acknowledge the Privacy Policy” and click “Confirm.” (Id. ¶ 17, Ex. E.) A user was not
`
`permitted to proceed past the popup notification – and thus could not request a ride – without
`
`checking the checkbox and clicking Confirm. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff proceeded past the checkbox
`
`pop-up and continued to use the Uber App. (Id. ¶ 18, Ex. F.)
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff Ignored The Arbitration Provisions and Filed Suit.
`
`Despite her Arbitration Agreement with Uber, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Her claims all
`
`stem from her allegations that she was overcharged⁠—by an unspecified amount and on
`
`unspecified occasions⁠—for rides that she arranged through the Uber App. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17.)
`
`This is precisely the type of dispute encompassed by the parties’ arbitration agreement. (See
`
`Fishman Decl., Exs. B-D (noting that the parties’ arbitration agreement covers any dispute
`
`relating to the Terms of Use and plaintiff’s “access to or use of the Services at any time.”).)
`
`Moreover, this is one of three lawsuits that Plaintiff’s Counsel has filed against Uber
`
`purportedly on behalf of riders alleging that they were overcharged. In May 2020, Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel filed a nearly identical lawsuit in the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco
`
`seeking to certify a California class of consumers who were allegedly charged more for rides
`
`with Uber than they were quoted upfront at the beginning of their ride. (Vetesi Decl., Ex. B.)
`
`On October 17, 2020, Uber filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and For a Stay of Proceedings
`
`Pending Arbitration, arguing that Uber’s 2016 Terms of Use—substantially similar to the terms
`
`to which Plaintiff here assented—required arbitration of claims relating to alleged overcharges.
`
`In looking at terms nearly identical to those at issue in this case, the Matthews court ordered the
`
`case to arbitration. (See id., Exs. C-D.) And less than two months after filing this lawsuit,
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel brought claims against Uber in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
`
`District of California, premised on the same factual allegations as in Matthews and in
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint in this matter. (See id., Ex. D.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel has no factual or legal basis for pursuing this case in this court. This
`
`Court should reject Plaintiff’s attempt to forum shop and order this case to arbitration.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) creates a body of federal substantive law that
`
`governs in both state and federal courts. Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1984).
`
`The FAA reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, and requires that arbitration
`
`agreements be rigorously enforced. See Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct.
`
`1421, 1424 (2017) (courts required “to place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with all
`
`other contracts”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’ns, LLC,
`
`722 F.3d 1151, *1160 (“[T]he FAA’s purpose is to give preference [instead of mere equality] to
`
`arbitration provisions.”) (citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 343 (2011)).
`
`Thus, “courts must ‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms . . . .’”
`
`Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013) (emphasis and internal
`
`citations omitted.)
`
`In determining whether claims are subject to arbitration, courts in this Circuit consider
`
`“(1) whether the parties have entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate, and, if so, (2) whether
`
`the dispute at issue comes within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” In re Am. Express Fin.
`
`Advisors Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113, 128 (2d Cir. 2011). Because Uber and Plaintiff entered into a
`
`valid agreement to arbitrate, and the dispute comes within the scope of the arbitration agreement,
`
`this Court should grant Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF MUST INDIVIDUALLY ARBITRATE HER CLAIMS.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Agreed To Be Bound by Uber’s Terms, Which Govern
`Plaintiff’s Claims.
`
`When Plaintiff began using Uber’s platform, she affirmatively agreed to Uber’s 2017
`
`Terms, which made clear that by agreeing, Plaintiff was “required to resolve any claim . . .
`
`against Uber on an individual basis in arbitration . . . .” (Fishman Decl., Ex. B at 2.) The 2017
`
`Terms clearly explained that any claims arising out of or relating to Uber’s Terms or to
`
`Plaintiff’s access or use of Uber’s platform would be adjudicated in an arbitration administered
`
`by the American Arbitration Association. (Id.) Plaintiff continued to use the Uber App and on
`
`November 3, 2021, just weeks before filing her Complaint, Plaintiff again expressly consented to
`
`Uber’s substantially-similar July 2021 Terms, which were displayed as a popup notification on
`
`the Uber App4. (Fishman Decl. ¶¶ 10, 16-18, Exs. E-F.)
`
`Even if Plaintiff had not affirmatively consented to the July 2021 Terms—and she did—
`
`Courts applying New York law consistently have held that “customers accept revised terms of
`
`their accounts by continuing to use their accounts after receiving the revised terms.” Guan, 236
`
`F. Supp. 3d at 726 (quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).5 As such, there can be no
`
`4 Given the broad Arbitration Provisions contained in all of Uber’s Terms of Use, including in the July 2021 Terms,
`the July 2021 Terms govern this dispute. See e.g., Plazza v. Airbnb, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 537, 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
`(broadly worded arbitration clause applying to “any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these
`Terms…” sufficient to refer the matter to arbitration). And even if the Court has doubts regarding which of Uber’s
`Terms are operative in this case, it should resolve those doubts in favor of arbitration. As discussed below, all of
`Uber’s Terms of Use, including the July 2021 Terms, delegate to the arbitrator “disputes relating to the
`interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Arbitration Agreement, including any claim that all
`or part of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable.” (Fishman Decl., Ex. B at 2; id., Ex. C at 3; id., Ex. D at
`4.)
`
`5 Furthermore, any argument that Plaintiff was not on notice of Uber’s Terms must fail. See, e.g., Nicosia v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 14 CV 4513 (SLT)(LB), 2017 WL 10111078, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017) (rejecting
`plaintiff’s argument that he was not on notice of defendant’s terms, where Plaintiff continued using defendant’s
`platform and “was on notice, through his counsel, of [defendant’s] arbitration provision . . . .”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 15 of 27
`
`dispute that Plaintiff agreed to be bound by Uber’s Terms of Use, including the Arbitration
`
`Provisions which remained largely unchanged from 2017 through the date that Plaintiff filed her
`
`Complaint.
`
`B.
`
`The FAA Applies To The Arbitration Provisions Contained in Uber’s
`Terms.
`
`The FAA provides that “[a] written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction
`
`involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract
`
`or transaction shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law
`
`or in equity for the revocation of any contract . . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 2.
`
`The Arbitration Provisions contained in Uber’s 2017 Terms and July 2021 Terms are
`
`indisputably governed by the FAA. First, both Arbitration Provisions state that the “parties
`
`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… It is the intent of the parties
`
`that the FAA and AAA Rules shall preempt all state laws to the fullest extent permitted by law.”
`
`(Fishman Decl., Ex. B at 2; id., Ex. D at 4.) Where, as here, an arbitration agreement expressly
`
`provides that the FAA governs, the FAA preempts application of state law, and the question of
`
`the contract’s validity is left to the arbitrator. See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546
`
`U.S. 440, 442-43 (2006).
`
`Second, the FAA applies to agreements (like the ones at issue here) evidencing a
`
`transaction involving interstate commerce. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-2; Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v.
`
`Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 273-77 (1995) (interpreting the FAA’s “involving commerce” provision
`
`as broadly as the phrase “affecting commerce” and holding that the FAA should be applied with
`
`the full reach of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause). As the United States Supreme
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10155-ALC Document 8 Filed 03/25/22 Page 16 of 27
`
`Court has explained, the individual transaction at issue need not have “any specific effect upon
`
`interst