Broadnax v. Lyft, Inc., 2:25-cv-00190

Rafford Broadnax became a Lyft driver by creating a driver account and agreeing to Lyft's Terms of Service, which included an arbitration clause.
Lyft later deactivated Broadnax's driver account.
Broadnax filed a lawsuit alleging discriminatory deactivation, employee misclassification, and several other workplace claims.
Lyft moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in its Terms of Service and to stay the case pending arbitration.
Broadnax opposed, challenging the enforceability and applicability of the arbitration clause.
The court considered whether the disputes must be resolved in arbitration and whether to stay the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of Arbitration Agreement	Did not physically sign or receive arbitration clause	Electronic acknowledgement sufficient	Enforceable, electronic consent allowed
FAA Exemption for Transportation Workers	Exempt as transportation worker	Rideshare drivers not covered by exemption	Not exempt; must arbitrate under FAA
Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause	Clause is unconscionable (no specifics identified)	Mutual, clear, opt-out provision present	Not unconscionable; valid and enforceable
Scope of Arbitration (Coverage of Claims)	Claims not covered by arbitration agreement	Broad clause covers all claims asserted	Arbitrator decides; all claims likely covered

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets standard for court's limited role when deciding motions to compel arbitration)
Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1991) (court does not consider merits in arbitration motion)
Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) (incorporation of AAA rules delegates arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator)
Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc., 7 F.4th 854 (9th Cir. 2021) (rideshare drivers not exempt from FAA as transportation workers)