`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`TIFFIN EPS, LLC, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`GRUBHUB, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civ. No. 18-5630
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`ORDER
`In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Tiffin EPS, LLC and Tiffin Mount Airy, LLC bring
`
`breach of contract and related claims against Defendant GrubHub, Inc. (Compl., Doc. No. 1.)
`
`After I allowed limited discovery on the issue of arbitration, Defendant renewed its Motion to
`
`Compel Arbitration, and the matter has been fully briefed. (Doc. Nos. 28, 32, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42.)
`
`I have resolved all factual disputes and construed all facts regarding arbitrability in Plaintiffs’
`
`favor. Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764, 775–76 (3d Cir. 2013)
`
`(applying Rule 56 standard in deciding post-discovery motion to compel arbitration). I must grant
`
`Defendant’s Motion if it “has established that there is no genuine dispute of material fact” as to
`
`arbitrability and it is “‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Hugh v. Butler Cty. Family
`
`YMCA, 418 F.3d 265, 266 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
`
`(1986)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
`
`I must determine: (1) if a valid arbitration agreement exists between the Parties, and (2)
`
`whether the instant dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. See Lloyd v. Hovensa, 369
`
`F.3d 263, 269 (3d. Cir. 2004); H2O Res., LLC v. Oilfield Tracking Servs., LLC, 2018 WL
`
`3092365, at *9 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2018). In resolving the second issue, “[a]ny doubts concerning
`
`the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Medtronic AVE Inc. v.
`
`Cordis Corp., 100 F. App’x 865, 867 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Suter v. Munich Reinsurance Co.,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-05630-PD Document 46 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`223 F.3d 150, 155 (3d Cir. 2000)). The Federal Arbitration Act “requires rigorous enforcement of
`
`arbitration agreements.” In re Mintze, 434 F.3d 222, 229 (3d Cir. 2006).
`
`Applying these standards here, I am compelled to grant Defendant’s Motion. The contracts
`
`Plaintiffs signed in 2011 incorporate the current terms of all GrubHub.com’s contracts. In June,
`
`2018, Defendant amended its restaurant-users’ contract to include the following: “You agree that
`
`all claims, disputes, or disagreements that may arise out of the interpretation or performance of
`
`this Agreement, or that in any way relate to your use of the Sites, the Materials, and/or other content
`
`on the Sites, shall be submitted exclusively to binding arbitration.” GRUBHUB’S TERMS OF USE,
`
`https://www.grubhub.com/legal/terms-of-use (last visited December 9, 2019). That provision
`
`binds Plaintiffs and plainly governs the instant dispute. Accordingly, I will grant Defendant’s
`
`Motion to Compel.
`
`AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`(Doc. No. 1), Defendant’s renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 28), Plaintiff’s
`
`Response (Doc. No. 32), and all additional responsive submissions (Doc. Nos. 36, 38, 40, 41, 42),
`
`it is hereby ORDERED that:
`
`1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED;
`
`2. Plaintiffs are directed to arbitrate their dispute with Defendant in accordance with
`
`GrubHub’s current Terms of Use; and
`
`3. This civil action is STAYED and the CLERK OF COURT shall place it in
`
`SUSPENSE pending determination of the arbitration proceedings. 9 U.S.C. § 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`/s/ Paul S. Diamond
`_________________________
`Paul S. Diamond, J.
`
`2
`
`