Torres, Jr. v. Airbnb, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs—Neftaly Torres, Jr., individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Neftaly Torres, Sr., and Aliah Torres—originally sued Airbnb, Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court. Their claims were for wrongful death, negligence, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. Airbnb removed that action to federal court. After the plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought remand to state court, the parties stipulated to submit all claims to binding arbitration. The underlying action was stayed and administratively closed while arbitration proceeded.

On November 9, 2024, the arbitrator issued an order resolving the plaintiffs’ claims in Airbnb’s favor. The American Arbitration Association emailed the order to the parties on November 14, 2024. The plaintiffs later filed this separate action seeking to vacate, or set aside, the arbitration order.

Timeliness of the Petition

Airbnb moved to dismiss the petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a pleading states a legally sufficient claim, and cross-petitioned for confirmation of the arbitration order. The court addressed timeliness first because it was dispositive and therefore did not reach Airbnb’s remaining substantive arguments.

The Federal Arbitration Act requires notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award to be served on the opposing party or attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered. The court determined that the deadline was February 14, 2025—three months after delivery on November 14, 2024. Although the plaintiffs filed their petition on February 10, they did not serve Airbnb until February 19, five days after the deadline identified by the court.

The plaintiffs argued that the late service should be excused based on excusable neglect, good cause, lack of prejudice, their efforts to serve the petition on time, and their belief that Airbnb had notice of the filing. They also asked the court to defer dismissal and allow discovery about notice. The court found that the plaintiffs provided no legal authority for that discovery request and no specific supporting facts. It also noted that the plaintiffs’ factual contentions did not comply with the applicable local rule requiring factual assertions supporting a motion to be supported by an affidavit or declaration and appropriate record references.

Ruling

The court assumed, without deciding, that the plaintiffs’ proposed doctrines could apply in this context. Even so, it found that the plaintiffs had not shown a basis to excuse their failure to serve the petition on time. The court held that dismissal based on untimeliness was warranted.

The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Order and granted Airbnb’s Cross-Petition to Confirm the Order. The court did not decide Airbnb’s remaining substantive arguments concerning the petition.