A motion filed by Uber Technologies Inc. late last week contends that the New York woman who sued the company for allegedly charging her higher-than-advertised ride prices must arbitrate her claims. Uber argues that the putative class action, one nearly identical to two others also filed by the plaintiff’s counsel in California, falls squarely within its arbitration clause and must proceed in the para-judicial forum.
Last December, the plaintiff sued in the Southern District of New York. Her class action complaint alleged that despite the ride-hailing company’s ostensibly transparent pricing policy, the company illegally baits-and-switches New York consumers to collect higher fares.
According to last week’s motion to compel arbitration, the woman agreed to Uber’s 2017 terms of service when she signed up for an account. Those terms, since updated, bind the plaintiff to individual arbitration, the filing says. Uber argues that the agreement is valid and enforceable, pointing to other Southern District court decisions upholding its agreements, like one pertaining to drivers’ underpayment claims.
In addition, the motion accuses plaintiff’s counsel of forum shopping. Uber contends that the instant complaint is almost an identical copy of a 2020 lawsuit filed against Uber in California state court that made the same factual allegations and sought to avoid the same terms of use the plaintiff agreed to in this case. It was shunted to arbitration, Uber adds.
The filing also points to a “strikingly similar” Northern District of California complaint filed less than two months after the instant suit. Uber concludes that “[w]hile Plaintiff’s counsel openly forum shops, Uber and this Court are now required to expend resources relitigating the same issues, which should be compelled to arbitration here just as in California.”
The plaintiff is represented by Reese LLP and Uber by Morrison & Foerster LLP.
