Crossett v. Turo
1:24-cv-00140
| D. Utah | Jul 30, 2025Background
- David D. Crossett, proceeding pro se, sued Turo Inc. (an online car-sharing platform) and several of its employees after his account was permanently terminated.
- Crossett had agreed to Turo’s Terms of Service, including an arbitration clause, when signing up and listing his car as a host on the platform.
- Crossett claims the contract was inaccessible to him due to his blindness and alleges Turo failed to provide ADA-required accommodations.
- Turo terminated Crossett’s account after he sent harassing messages to a guest, which was found to violate the Terms of Service.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings; Crossett opposed, arguing lack of mutual agreement due to his inability to access the contract. Crossett also requested to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Magistrate Judge Bennett issued a report recommending (1) granting Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and (2) denying Crossett’s in forma pauperis motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrability of claims under Turo's Terms | Contract (incl. arbitration clause) is void; inaccessible due to blindness | Arbitration clause is valid, covers all disputes, and delegates arbitrability to arbitrator | Arbitrator decides arbitrability |
| Enforceability of contract despite access issues | No mutual agreement; contract is void for inaccessibility | Attack on whole contract is for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide | Arbitrator decides enforceability |
| In forma pauperis status | Only his income should count; spouse’s income irrelevant | Spousal income is relevant for determining eligibility | Denied; spouse’s income disqualifies |
| Consideration of extra plaintiff memoranda | Filed additional memoranda opposing arbitration | Local rules prohibit extra memoranda without leave of court | Not considered by the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (establishes a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration under the FAA)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (parties may agree to arbitrate questions of arbitrability if shown clearly and unmistakably)
- Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (distinguishes challenges to arbitration provisions from attacks on the contract as a whole; latter are for arbitrator)
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (challenges to contract validity as a whole go to the arbitrator)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (arbitration agreements must be enforced according to their terms)