Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ’s free weekly newsletter here. Thus, Judge Furman denied Postmates’ motion to compel arbitration and ordered the company to answer the plaintiff’s complaint within 21 days. “It follows that the Postmates Modified Terms, which were not signed by Plaintiff, are not effective as to Plaintiff and that the original agreement, which concededly includes no arbitration agreement, governs their relationship,” the order stated. Though an arbitration agreement was included in Postmates’ “Modified Terms” as sent to the plaintiff via email, the original agreement signed by the plaintiff clearly indicated that the contract could only be amended by a written document signed by both parties, the judge found. “Accordingly, the Court is compelled to conclude that the threshold questions of arbitrability with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Uber Eats, Grubhub, and DoorDash are for the relevant arbitrator to decide and, thus, that their motions to compel arbitration must be granted,” the judge wrote.Īs for Postmates, Judge Furman noted that the plaintiff’s initial agreement with the company did not contain an arbitration clause. While the plaintiff argued that its dispute with each of the food delivery platforms does not fall under the respective arbitration provisions, the judge found that each contract “plainly delegates” the question of a dispute’s arbitrability to the arbitrator. Furman noted that the bakery’s respective contracts with Grubhub, Uber Eats and DoorDash each contained an arbitration agreement. The judge overseeing the case detailed on this page has sent the plaintiff’s claims against Grubhub, Uber Eats and DoorDash to arbitration while allowing claims against Postmates to remain in court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |