Greco v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Lucia Greco sued Uber Technologies, Inc., Raisier LLC, and Rasier-CA LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Act. She alleged that Uber drivers refused to provide her rides because of her guide dog.

Greco’s user agreement included a binding-arbitration provision. She filed an arbitration claim with the American Arbitration Association in March 2020. The Association later told the parties that it would not administer the claim because Uber had not complied with its consumer-claim policies. It also stated that either party could submit the dispute to a court.

Greco then filed this lawsuit. Uber moved to compel arbitration, but the court denied that motion. The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions holding that, under the parties’ agreement and incorporated arbitration rules, arbitration had already occurred for purposes of that agreement and Uber could not require a second arbitration. Uber appealed that order and asked the district court to stay, or pause, the case while the appeal was pending.

Legal standard

The court applied four factors for deciding whether to stay a case pending appeal: the applicant’s likelihood of success, the risk of irreparable injury without a stay, possible injury to other parties, and the public interest. The factors are weighed together, so a strong showing on one may offset a weaker showing on another.

Analysis

The court found that Uber had not shown a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success on appeal. Uber argued that arbitration had never begun, that the matter had only been administratively closed, that the Association had misapplied its rules, and that Uber had not breached or waived its arbitration rights.

The court rejected those arguments. It explained that the parties’ agreement incorporated the Association’s rules, including rules allowing the Association to decline to administer an arbitration and allowing the parties to submit the dispute to court afterward. The court therefore focused on whether the parties had followed the agreement rather than on external definitions of when arbitration was formally commenced or terminated. The court also said that review of the Association’s interpretation of its own procedural rules was narrow and that the Association’s interpretation was reasonable.

The court further found that Uber had identified only the time and expense of litigating the case as irreparable harm. It concluded that this was not enough. The court also found that Greco faced a substantial risk of losing relevant evidence because her claims depended on Uber drivers’ memories and testimony, which could fade or become difficult to obtain. Finally, the court concluded that the public interest favored speedy resolution and that the policy favoring arbitration did not outweigh the other considerations.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Uber’s motion to stay pending appeal. The order addressed only the requested pause during the appeal and did not decide the underlying claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the California Unruh Act.