| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion To Vacate Order Compelling Arbitration And Award For Sanctions Or, In The Alternative, Invitation To Reconsider
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Thursday, October 9, 2025, Line 4. DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion To Vacate Order Compelling Arbitration And Award For Sanctions Or, In The Alternative, Invitation To Reconsider.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the order granting plaintiff's motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration and award for sanctions or, in the alternative, invitation to reconsider is granted. The portion of the May 27, 2025 order vacating the May 10, 2023 order granting Uber's motion to compel arbitration is vacated and the May 10, 2023 order granting Uber's motion to compel arbitration is reinstated. The portion of the motion seeking a refund of the sanctions awarded in the May 27, 2025 order is denied.
The court accepts the invitation to reconsider the May 27, 2025 order per Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094 based on the significant change in the law effected by Hohenshelt v. Superior Court regarding waiver of the contractual right to arbitration for untimely payment of arbitration expenses. Plaintiff Felicita Saravia has not filed any opposition to this motion.
Upon reconsideration of the May 27, 2025 order, Hohenshelt compels the vacation of the portion of that order vacating the May 10, 2023 order because there are no facts showing that Uber's failure to timely pay arbitration expenses was willful, fraudulent or grossly negligent. However, the portion of the May 27, 2025 order requiring Uber to pay $6,900 "as a result of the material breach" by Uber is fully consistent with Hohenshelt and thus is not disturbed. The award of $6,900, an amount expressly found to compensate Ms. Saravia, satisfies the "compensation requirement" of Civil Code 3275 as construed in Hohenshelt.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/HEK) |