throbber
Case 2:18-cv-05630-PD Document 46 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 2
`
`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
`
`

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