718 F.Supp.3d 571
E.D. La.2024Background
- Sharon Hughes was injured while entering an Uber vehicle requested by her daughter via the Uber Rider App in New Orleans, Louisiana.
- The vehicle, operated by Briana Gordon, allegedly accelerated while Hughes had only one leg inside, causing injuries, and then ran over her as it drove away.
- Hughes sued the driver (Gordon), Uber Technologies, Rasier, and two insurance companies for negligence and vicarious liability, claiming Uber and Rasier failed to properly screen, hire, and supervise Gordon.
- Uber and Rasier sought to either dismiss the case or compel arbitration, arguing Hughes was bound by the arbitration clause in the Uber Terms of Use her daughter agreed to.
- The court considered whether Hughes, a non-signatory, is a third-party beneficiary of her daughter's agreement and thus must arbitrate her claims under Louisiana law.
- The court ultimately granted Uber/Rasier’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings as to them, but denied their request to dismiss the case outright because claims against other defendants remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arbitration agreement | No dispute (applies to daughter, not Hughes) | Agreement is valid via “clickwrap” acceptance | Valid agreement between Uber and daughter exists |
| Third-party beneficiary status of plaintiff | Not a clear third-party beneficiary; not identified | Hughes is an intended beneficiary (guest rider) | Hughes is third-party beneficiary; covered by clause |
| Scope of arbitration clause | Her claims fall outside arbitration agreement | Plaintiff’s claims arise from use of services | Claims “arise out of” use; must be arbitrated |
| Whether to stay or dismiss the case | Opposed dismissal or stay as to all defendants | Move to dismiss or alternatively stay | Stay (not dismissal) as claims remain vs. others |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (federal courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements)
- Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (FAA establishes substantive federal policy favoring arbitration)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (liberal policy favoring arbitration under FAA)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (arbitration is a matter of contract and federal law favors enforcing agreements)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (state contract law determines who is bound by arbitration agreements)