Greco v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Lucia Greco brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, and Rasier-CA LLC, which the opinion collectively calls “Uber.” Greco is visually impaired and uses a guide dog. She alleged that Uber drivers repeatedly canceled rides after learning about her guide dog, leaving her stranded, late, and humiliated. She also alleged that Uber failed to train and supervise its drivers.

Greco had agreed to Uber terms requiring disputes arising from the agreement or use of Uber’s service to be resolved by binding arbitration administered under American Arbitration Association rules. The terms also stated that Uber could change the terms and that continued use of the service would indicate consent. The parties did not dispute that a valid arbitration agreement existed or that Greco’s claims fell within its scope.

Greco filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association. Before the demand was served on Uber, the Association said Uber had not complied with its consumer-claim policies and declined to administer the claim. It administratively closed the file and stated that either party could submit the dispute to the appropriate court. Uber later paid fees in two unrelated matters and was reinstated on the consumer arbitration registry, but the Association declined to reopen Greco’s case. It said the case would remain closed unless Greco refiled or a court ordered otherwise. Greco declined Uber’s request to refile and filed this lawsuit.

Legal standard

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court may order arbitration when a party has failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate under a written agreement. The court generally determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether it covers the dispute. The Act also generally requires a court to pause related litigation until the arbitration has been completed, unless the party seeking the pause is in default.

Analysis

The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions holding that arbitration can be considered to have taken place in accordance with the parties’ agreement even when it ends without a decision on the merits, if the parties’ chosen arbitration rules allow that result. Here, the parties had agreed to use American Arbitration Association rules. Those rules required businesses to pay certain fees, allowed the Association to decline consumer arbitration when a business did not pay required fees, and allowed either party to submit the dispute to court after the Association declined to administer it.

The court concluded that Uber had agreed to those rules and could not ask the court to override them and force the dispute back into arbitration. It rejected Uber’s arguments that issues such as waiver and breach had been delegated to the arbitrator, explaining that the parties agreed the contract was valid and that Greco’s breach theory was alternative to her argument that arbitration had already taken place. The court also rejected Uber’s arguments about payment of the fees and the Federal Arbitration Act’s provision allowing a court to appoint an alternative arbitrator when the agreed method fails. The court found no need to appoint another arbitrator because the parties’ intent to use the Association’s rules was clear, and those rules allowed the dispute to proceed in court.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration. The court also ordered Uber to respond to the complaint within 21 days, set a case-management conference for October 19, 2020, and terminated Docket Number 14.