Nesjan vs. AirBnB, Inc.

The motion however is not moot as to the issue of monetary sanctions. Section 2033.280(c) states, “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

Here, Plaintiff requests $1,885.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant JOSE CORNEJO.

The amount requested appears excessive in light of the circumstances. The court awards a total of $1,185.00 (representing 2.5 hours at $450/hour plus $60 filing fee). Defendant Jose Cornejo to pay Plaintiff a total of $1,185.00 within 60 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

14 Nesjan vs. AirBnB, Motion to Compel Arbitration Inc. The court GRANTS Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff ADALYNN NESJAN to arbitrate her claims against Defendant, and to STAY this action.

Plaintiff alleges she fell on the stairs at a property in Laguna Hills and that Defendants Airbnb, Inc. and Tatiana Taleb negligently owned, maintained, managed, or operated the premises. (ROA 2.)

Defendant proffers evidence that Plaintiff agreed to Defendant’s Terms of Service before creating an Airbnb account and booking accommodation through Defendant. (Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; 15-24.) The Terms of Service Version 13 contain the following arbitration provision:

23.4 Agreement to Arbitrate. You and Airbnb mutually agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms or the applicability, breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation thereof, or any use of the Airbnb Platform, Host Services, or any Content (collectively, “Disputes”) will be

settled by binding individual arbitration (the “Arbitration Agreement”). If there is a dispute about whether this Arbitration Agreement can be enforced or applies to our Dispute, you and Airbnb agree that the arbitrator will decide that issue. ... 23.6 Arbitration Rules and Governing Law. This Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce and the Federal Arbitration Act governs all substantive and procedural interpretation and enforcement of this provision.

(Anderson Decl., Exh. K.)

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which includes both procedural and substantive provisions, governs agreements involving interstate commerce. The FAA applies here because the Terms of Service expressly state that the FAA applies. (See, e.g., Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355.)

The FAA states that written arbitration agreements ”shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) On a motion to compel arbitration, the court’s role is limited to deciding: “(1) whether there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the agreement covers the dispute.” (Brennan v. Opus Bank (9th Cir. 2015) 796 F.3d 1125, 1130.) If these conditions are satisfied, the court is without discretion to deny the motion and must compel arbitration. (9 U.S.C. § 4; Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd (1985) 470 U.S. 213, 218 [“By its terms, the [FAA] leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration.”].)

“‘[P]arties may agree to have an arbitrator decide not only the merits of a particular dispute but also ““gateway’ questions of ‘arbitrability,’ such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.”' [Citation.] But ‘[c]ourts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is “clea[r] and unmistakabl[e]”

evidence that they did so.’ [Citation.] This is a ‘heightened standard,’ and it ‘pertains to the parties' manifestation of intent, not the agreement's validity.’ [Citation.]” (Najarro v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 871, 879-880.)

Here, the Arbitration Provision broadly states that “any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms or the applicability, breach, termination, validity, enforcement or interpretation thereof, or any use of the Airbnb Platform, Host Services, or any Content” shall be settled by binding arbitration. Further, “If there is a dispute about whether this Arbitration Agreement can be enforced or applies to our Dispute, you and Airbnb agree that the arbitrator will decide that issue.” (Anderson Decl., Exh. K; see also, Najarro, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 888 [provision that, as relevant here, “‘the arbitrator shall have the exclusive power to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this [a]greement’” constituted a “clear and unmistakable” delegation clause].)

The arbitration provision appears to cover the claims asserted by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Also, the entire action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. Once the arbitration is completed, the action may proceed as to Defendant TATIANA TALEB.

The court sets an ADR Review Hearing for 12/7/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department W08. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a status report regarding arbitration no later than 10 court days prior to the hearing.

Moving Defendant to give notice.

15 Jones vs. Hyundai Motion to Compel Arbitration Motor America The court GRANTS Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel arbitration the claims of Plaintiff Tina Jones and to stay the action.

26