990 F.3d 757
3rd Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs: several motorized-wheelchair users and a disability-rights nonprofit sued Uber under Title III of the ADA, alleging lack of a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) option in Pittsburgh prevented them from using Uber’s service.
- Plaintiffs never downloaded the Uber app, created accounts, or agreed to Uber’s Terms of Use (which include a mandatory arbitration clause).
- Uber moved to compel arbitration, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing unless they stood in the shoes of app users bound by the Terms and that equitable estoppel should bind non-signatories to arbitrate.
- The District Court denied the motion, finding plaintiffs had standing and were not bound by Uber’s Terms because they never accepted or knowingly exploited the contract.
- Uber filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to compel arbitration. The Third Circuit limited its review to arbitrability (per its Griswold precedent), declined to reach the District Court’s standing ruling, and held equitable estoppel did not require arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court must decide plaintiffs’ Article III standing on interlocutory appeal of denial to compel arbitration | Plaintiffs: standing was properly found by the District Court; appeal need not revisit standing | Uber: appellate court must assure plaintiffs have standing before resolving arbitrability | Court: No. Under Griswold, on FAA interlocutory appeal the court need only ensure it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal (standing to appeal and §4 prerequisites); it need not and will not independently decide standing to sue |
| Whether pendent appellate jurisdiction permits review of the District Court’s standing ruling | Plaintiffs: standing and arbitrability are distinct; pendent jurisdiction inappropriate | Uber: standing is inextricably intertwined with arbitrability, so pendent review is needed | Court: No. Pendent appellate jurisdiction is narrow and applies only when issues are inextricably intertwined or necessary for meaningful review; here the factual inquiries differ, so pendent review denied |
| Whether plaintiffs (non-signatories) are equitably estopped from avoiding Uber’s arbitration clause | Plaintiffs: they never accepted or exploited the Terms; their ADA claim does not rely on the contract | Uber: Plaintiffs must rely on Uber’s Terms to prove what Uber offers, so they should be bound to arbitrate | Court: No. Under Pennsylvania law and Third Circuit precedent, equitable estoppel binds non‑signatories only if they knowingly exploit or directly benefit from the contract; plaintiffs did neither, so arbitration not compelled |
Key Cases Cited
- Griswold v. Coventry First LLC, 762 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2014) (limits interlocutory FAA appeals to review of arbitrability and defines narrow pendent appellate jurisdiction)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2001) (equitable estoppel may bind non‑signatories who knowingly exploit a contract)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009) (describes scope of interlocutory appeals under the FAA and standing-to-appeal considerations)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) ("look-through" principle for §4 jurisdictional analysis)
- In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC, 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013) (example of pendent appellate jurisdiction where standing was inextricably intertwined)
- Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 359 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2004) (non‑signatory may be bound when it embraces and benefits from the agreement)
- GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020) (federal arbitration law does not displace background state contract‑law doctrines)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing analysis must be tailored to the relief sought)