Rogers v. Lyft, Inc.

Rogers v. Lyft, Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM³

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's decision to compel arbitration and dismiss the arbitrable claims. We affirm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See also Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding when a district court determines all of the claims raised in an action are subject to arbitration, it may either stay the action or dismiss it, and a dismissed action is subject to appeal). We review a decision to grant a motion to compel arbitration de novo. Casa del Caffe Vergnano S.P.A. v. ItalFlavors, LLC, 816 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016).

At issue in this appeal is whether Lyft drivers are engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). See Romero v. Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc., 9 F.4th 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2021) ("[Section] 1 of the FAA exempts from the Act's coverage all 'contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.'" (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 1) (emphasis added)).

We recently decided this question in Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc., 7 F.4th 854 (9th Cir. 2021), holding that rideshare drivers "do not fall within the 'interstate commerce' exemption from the FAA." Id. at 861. Because Capriole controls the outcome in this case, we affirm the judgment of this district court.

All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.