California Appellate Tracker

Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

June 15, 2018

Though Uber’s arbitration clause contained a delegation clause, its motion to compel arbitration was wholly groundless and thus properly denied since the plaintiff’s claim arose from his work as a Lyft driver, not as an Uber driver.

Ordinarily, if the arbitration agreement contains a clause delegating arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, the clause will be enforced and the court will let the arbitrator decide whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. However, this case holds the court will decide if the assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless, and in that event not compel arbitration. Here, a driver for both Uber and Lyft claimed that Uber tried to undermine Lyft and its drivers by making phantom requests for Lyft rides, causing Lyft drivers to lose time and money going to collect riders who never showed up. The claim arose solely from the plaintiff’s role as a Lyft driver, not from his role as an Uber driver. His arbitration agreement with Uber related only to his Uber employment, not his work for Lyft. So Uber’s motion to compel arbitration was properly denied.

California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3 (Siggins, J.); June 8, 2018; 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 531

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson