246 F. Supp. 3d 1317
M.D. Fla.2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Rimel, an Orlando-area UberX driver, sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC asserting state-law claims (tortious interference, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, unfair competition, fraud, Florida Minimum Wage Act) in a putative class action.
- Drivers access UberX by accepting a Services Agreement in the app; the Agreement contained an arbitration provision requiring individual arbitration and a delegation clause sending threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator; drivers had a 30-day opt-out right.
- Rimel admitted he accepted a 2014 Services Agreement but contended he later accepted a 2015 version and timely opted out; he also argued California law governs and that the arbitration/delegation clauses are unconscionable and violate public policy (including PAGA and NLRA concerns).
- Magistrate Judge Spaulding recommended granting Uber’s motion to compel arbitration and to strike class allegations; the district court conducted de novo review of objections.
- The court held the arbitration provision is severable, governed by Florida law, the delegation clause is clear and enforceable, the arbitration/class-waiver provisions are not unconscionable, and disputes must proceed to individual arbitration; the action is stayed and administratively closed pending arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for arbitration clause | Rimel: California choice-of-law in the Services Agreement governs the arbitration clause | Uber: Arbitration provision is severable and has no choice-of-law; lex loci contractus (Florida) applies | Florida law governs the arbitration provision (severable from the Agreement) |
| Delegation clause validity | Rimel: Delegation clause is not "clear and unmistakable" (conflicts with forum-selection clause) | Uber: Clause language and "except as otherwise provided" reconciles any tension; clause delegates arbitrability | Delegation clause is clear and unmistakable and delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator |
| Unconscionability (procedural/substantive) | Rimel: Clause is procedurally unconscionable (hidden, adhesive) and substantively unconscionable (possible excessive arbitration fees) | Uber: Drivers had meaningful 30-day opt-out; Uber pays arbitrator/arbitration fees per clause; no evidence of prohibitive costs | Arbitration/delegation clauses are neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable under applicable law |
| Class‑action/PAGA/NLRA/public‑policy challenge | Rimel: Class/collective waivers and PAGA waiver violate public policy and NLRA rights | Uber: Opt-out preserved voluntariness; delegation clause sends enforceability challenges (including PAGA) to arbitrator; FAA preempts | Class-action waiver and PAGA/NLRA challenges are for the arbitrator to decide; waiver/enforcement upheld and arbitration compelled |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (severability: arbitration provision is severable from contract for validity challenges)
- Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (delegation clauses are separable and questions of arbitrability can be delegated to arbitrator)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (arbitration is a matter of consent; courts only determine arbitrability under contract)
- Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 489 U.S. 468 (parties may structure arbitration agreements and choose procedures)
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (excessive arbitration costs can preclude effective vindication of rights)
- Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781 (district courts need not conduct de novo review where no specific objections; review for clear error)