Hofer v. Emley, 3:19-cv-02205

Background

Brian and Jonathan Hofer rented a Getaround-owned car; on Nov. 25, 2018 Contra Costa deputies stopped the vehicle after an ALPR “hit,” drew guns, handcuffed both, searched the trunk and Brian’s phone (obtaining the passcode), and used force against Jonathan. Plaintiffs allege no identification or probable cause was sought before detention/searches.
Plaintiffs allege the vehicle had been reported stolen on Oct. 20, 2018 but was recovered; they claim SJPD or Getaround failed to remove the car from stolen-vehicle lists and/or notify ALPR vendor Vigilant, so the car remained on Vigilant’s list and triggered the ALPR hit.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) claims against the County and deputies, California Bane Act and state tort claims against deputies and the County, and negligence against Getaround, SJPD (San Jose), and Vigilant.
Getaround moved to compel arbitration under its Terms of Service; Contra Costa, San Jose, and Vigilant moved to dismiss various claims.
The court compelled arbitration of Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against Getaround (and held nonsignatory passenger Jonathan estopped from avoiding arbitration), stayed the action as to Getaround, denied most dismissal requests against the deputies/County (but dismissed certain state tort claims against the County to the extent premised on direct, not vicarious, liability), granted San Jose’s dismissal for failure to plead a statutory basis (leave to amend), and granted Vigilant’s dismissal for failure to plead facts showing a duty/breach (leave to amend).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Getaround's arbitration clause applies to Brian and nonsignatory passenger Jonathan	Brian agreed to Terms; Jonathan benefitted as passenger so should not avoid arbitration	Jonathan is not a party to the Agreement; Comer supports nonsignatory defense	Arbitration clause valid for Brian; Jonathan bound under direct-benefits equitable estoppel; arbitration compelled and action stayed as to Getaround
Whether California Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2(c) allows court to refuse arbitration because related claims against non‑arbitrating defendants could yield conflicting rulings	Section 1281.2(c) discretion should apply because common issues overlap with non‑arbitrating defendants	FAA preempts §1281.2(c) absent clear unmistakable intent to incorporate California arbitral rules; Agreement references FAA	FAA governs here (Agreement expressly adopts FAA); §1281.2(c) does not apply; even if it did, court would not decline to compel arbitration
Whether the arbitration agreement “involves commerce” under the FAA	Service is “solely based in California” so FAA does not apply	Getaround operates nationwide, app access via Internet, rentals across states; transaction affects interstate commerce	Transaction affects interstate commerce; FAA applies; arbitration clause enforceable under FAA
Whether County is liable under Monell for deputies’ alleged Fourth Amendment violations	County policies/practices caused violations; sheriff’s public approval ratified conduct	Only an isolated incident alleged; no specific municipal policy pleaded	Monell claim for policy/custom dismissed for lack of facts, but Monell claim under ratification theory survives (sheriff alleged as final policymaker who publicly approved deputies’ conduct)
Sufficiency of §1983 claims against individual deputies and qualified immunity defense	Deputies unlawfully stopped, detained, searched, used excessive force; allegations mirror Green v. SF so factual disputes remain for jury	Deputies had reasonable suspicion/privileges; qualified immunity	Court denied dismissal of §1983 claims against deputies — allegations sufficiently plausible to proceed; qualified immunity not resolved on pleadings
Violation of California Bane Act and related state tort claims (assault, false imprisonment, IIED, negligence)	State claims track federal Fourth Amendment and excessive force allegations	Defendants invoke statutes (Penal Code §§835a, 836.5(b)) to claim privileges/immunity	Bane Act claim survives along with state torts because excessive‑force/unlawful detention are plausibly alleged; certain statutory defenses inappropriate at pleading stage; direct‑liability tort claims against County dismissed (no statutory basis), vicarious liability survives
San Jose (SJPD) negligence claim based on failure to maintain accurate stolen‑vehicle records	City breached duty to maintain/update stolen‑vehicle records (Penal Code §11108 referenced in opposition)	City moves to dismiss: no statutory basis pleaded for direct liability; immunity defenses asserted	Court dismissed negligence claim against San Jose for failure to plead statutory basis (leave to amend); immunity defenses rejected at this stage
Vigilant negligence (ALPR vendor) — duty/control over stolen‑vehicle list	Vigilant hosts ALPR data and had duty to maintain accurate stolen‑vehicle lists; its failure caused stop	Vigilant argues complaint lacks factual allegations showing it received notice or controlled list; governmental sources govern list entries	Court granted dismissal with leave to amend — plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Vigilant’s receipt of notice or control over the stolen‑vehicle list

Key Cases Cited

Rent‑A‑Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (arbitration agreements enforceable and courts must follow their terms)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (strong federal policy favors enforcement of arbitration agreements)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA requires piecemeal enforcement of arbitration agreements when necessary)
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) (general choice‑of‑law clause does not necessarily incorporate state arbitration rules)
Wolsey Ltd. v. Foodmaker, Inc., 144 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 1998) (general choice‑of‑law clauses do not import state arbitration procedural rules like §1281.2(c))
Allied‑Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (FAA applies broadly to transactions affecting interstate commerce)
Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (nonsignatory generally not bound; estoppel requires knowing exploitation of agreement’s benefits)
NORCAL Mut. Ins. Co. v. Newton, 84 Cal. App. 4th 64 (2000) (California direct‑benefits estoppel doctrine binds nonsignatories who receive direct benefits)
Green v. City & County of San Francisco, 751 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALPR hit alone may be insufficient; factual disputes on detention and force for jury)
Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1991) (ratification by an authorized policymaker can support municipal liability under Monell)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy/custom or official ratification)
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must plead factual content permitting plausible claims)
Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2016) (California Gov. Code §821.6 immunity limited; malicious‑prosecution scope discussed)