The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 were read on this motion to/for STAY. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents and following oral argument, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion by order to show cause, seeking an Order pursuant to CPLR 2201, 7503 (c), and 9 USC 3, staying this action, including all discovery, pending the completion of Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (Uber’s) arbitration proceeding against Plaintiff before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) for the same claims asserted in this action is granted for the reasons set forth below. Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries sustained as a result of a November 23, 2021 motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle owned by Dagbid, Inc., and operated by “John Doe, and Unknown Operator” in which Plaintiff was a passenger who arranged for the ride through the Uber app. Plaintiff and Uber entered into two stipulations extending Uber’s time to answer, appear or otherwise move with respect to the Verified Complaint. On the June 22, 2023, Uber filed an Answer, which included an affirmative defense that the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement (Thirteenth Affirmative Defense) and the instant order to show cause. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff submitted an attorney affirmation and a supplemental attorney affirmation in which Plaintiff contends that, “[a[]rbitration of the excess claim CANNOT occur until the primary litigation is resolved,” so the arbitration between Plaintiff and Uber should be stayed, not the within lawsuit; that Plaintiff never agreed to arbitrate and did not waive her right to a jury trial; and that Uber waived its right to compel arbitration and stay the action by filing an Answer in this action. CPLR 2201 provides this court with broad discretion, unless otherwise prescribed by law, to grant stays “upon such terms as may be just.” A court may stay an action to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and potential waste of judicial resources (CMBSW Group, LLC v. Inverness Counsel, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 32525 [U] at *4 [Sup Ct, NY County July 31, 2020]). Stays of actions are appropriate where an arbitration proceeding could dispose of or limit the issues to be resolved in the pending litigation (See Oxbow Calcining USA Inc. v. American Indus. Partners, 96 AD3d 646, 652 [1st Dept 2012]). A court may grant a stay even where the arbitration lacks the total identity of parties. (See Uptown Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. v. Rivkin Radler LLP, 116 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2014]). All that is required is overlapping issues of fact and law in the related actions (See Belopolsky v. Renew Data Corp., 41 AD3d 322, 322 [1st Dept 2007]). Here, movant has demonstrated that there are overlapping factual and legal issues as to Uber’s liability that may be resolved during the arbitration. Movant complied with all the requirements of CPLR 7503 (c). Plaintiff’s opposition contends that the stay will delay this action. However, the Court finds that the benefits of preventing inconsistent judgments and advancing the efficient use of judicial resources outweigh the minimal delay the stay entails (see Wu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 219 AD3d 1208 [1st Dept Sep 21, 2023] [affirming trial court decision that denied motion of plaintiff customer to stay arbitration and granted defendant company's motion to compel arbitration] and Brooks v. Yang, 216 AD3d 505 [1st Dept May 16, 2023] [reversing denial of defendant company's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings]). Plaintiff’s reliance, in her submitted supplemental opposition papers, on the August 2023 decision and order issued in Sullivan and McCann v. Uber, et al., New York County Supreme Court Index 653207/2022 is misplaced because that case is distinguishable from the instant case. First, in Sullivan, Uber was found to have waived arbitration by participating in the litigation where the parties participated in discovery and plaintiff was directed to file a note of issue on or before a particular date. Here, Uber cannot be said to have waived arbitration by participating in this litigation because the only participation in this litigation by Uber was to enter a stipulation extending its time to file an answer, appear or otherwise move with respect to the Verified Complaint and to file an answer and the instant motion on the same date. Uber filed the instant motion on the same date as it filed an Answer. Second, in Sullivan, the court found that the First Department decisions compelling arbitration and staying Supreme Court proceedings in Wu and Brooks were not applicable because one of the two plaintiffs (Sullivan) did not consent to arbitration as she did not arrange the ride on the Uber app. Here, by contrast, there is no dispute that the decisions in Wu and Brooks are applicable because here there is no dispute that Plaintiff, the sole passenger in the vehicle, agreed to arbitration when she arranged the ride through the Uber app. The motion for a stay of this action pending the outcome of the arbitration is granted, and this case shall be stayed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to stay the instant Supreme Court action is granted and the matter is stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceeding between plaintiff and Uber. Counsel for Uber is to notify the Court and all parties via NYSCEF when the arbitration proceeding has been completed. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: January 10, 2024
