Haider v. Lyft, Inc.

Background

In an earlier opinion, the court held that Lyft could require the drivers to arbitrate their claims under Delaware law based on the terms of service’s choice-of-law provision. The drivers moved for reconsideration of that decision. Alternatively, they asked the court to lift the stay and dismiss the action so they could seek an appeal from a final order, or to certify an immediate, non-final appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Reconsideration

A reconsideration motion is available only for an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court emphasized that reconsideration is not a vehicle for repeating arguments already presented and rejected.

The drivers argued that the amended arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. The court disagreed. It again concluded that the revisions were minor, that Lyft explained their effect, and that drivers could opt out. The court distinguished the cases cited by the drivers because those cases involved more significant, confusing, coercive, or otherwise different conduct.

The drivers also argued that they had validly opted out under New York contract law. The court again concluded that they sent their opt-out emails before Lyft had communicated an offer and before they accepted the revised terms through the Lyft app. Under the agreement, an opt-out had to be sent after execution. The court therefore found the preemptive opt-out emails invalid.

The drivers further argued that Plaintiff Mohammad Islam was not barred from relitigating whether his claims were arbitrable. The court rejected that argument, stating that an earlier decision had already determined that Islam accepted the agreement, that New York choice-of-law rules applied, and that his claims were arbitrable under state law. The court concluded that Islam was precluded from relitigating those issues.

Requests concerning an appeal

The drivers asked the court to lift the stay and dismiss the action so the Second Circuit could review a final order. The court denied that request, holding that the stay was mandatory under either New York or Delaware law and therefore could not be lifted for that purpose.

The drivers also sought certification of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Such certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement, and the possibility that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation. The court stated that the request was likely waived because the drivers addressed its supporting requirements only in their reply brief. In any event, the court concluded that the drivers had not shown a controlling or particularly difficult legal issue, substantial disagreement among courts, or meaningful precedential value from an immediate appeal.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the drivers’ motion for reconsideration and further denied their requests to lift the stay or certify an issue for interlocutory appeal. The order resolved Docket Number 94.