Vivian Badillo Velasco v. Javier Cisneros, et al.

Case Number

25CV00932

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/25/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendant Lyft Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Vivian Badillo Velasco: Nicole H. Dolle, RMD Law LLP

For Defendant Javier Cisneros: No Appearance; Default Entered

For Defendant Jonathan Martel: No Appearance

For Defendant Lyft, Inc.: Bradford G. Hughes, Max Anikstein, Clark Hill LLP

                       

RULING

Defendant Lyft Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is continued to March 18, 2026, at 10 a.m. in this department. Lyft shall file proof of service of the Carr declaration no later than March 20, 2026. If Plaintiff has not been previously served with the declaration, Plaintiff may file and serve her relevant additional opposition, if any, no less than nine Court days prior to the new hearing date. Should Plaintiff file further opposition based on the declaration, Lyft Inc. shall file its reply to the opposition, if any, no less than two Court days prior to the new hearing date.

Background and Analysis

This action commenced on February 13, 2025, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Vivian Badillo Velasco (Plaintiff) against Defendants Javier Cisneros, Jonathan Martel, and Lyft Inc. (Lyft), asserting causes of action for (1) Motor Vehicle – as to all Defendants; (2) General Negligence – as to all Defendants; and (3) Intentional Tort – as to Martel.

By way of her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on July 6, 2024, near De La Guerra Street and Nopal Street, in Santa Barbara, she was entering a vehicle and getting herself situated as a passenger in a vehicle that was being driving by Cisneros, who was at the time working for Lyft, and that the vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Martel. Plaintiff alleges that Cisneros was negligent by failing to pull over safely when picking her up, and alleges that LYFT negligently hired, trained, and retained Cisneros. Plaintiff further alleges that Martel was intoxicated when he rearended the vehicle driven by Cisneros.

On April 21, 2025, Lyft answered the complaint with a general denial and 16 affirmative defenses.

According to a filed proof of service, Cisneros was personally served in this action on July 21, 2025. On August 29, 2025, no answer having been filed, Plaintiff took the default of Cisneros.

Martel has not yet appeared, and there is no proof of service on file indicating that he was served.

On December 17, 2025, Lyft filed the present motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, arguing that Plaintiff entered into a binding and enforceable arbitration agreement with Lyft.

On February 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement should not, and cannot, be enforced.

While Lyft indicates in both the caption and the body of the motion that the motion was filed concurrently with declarations of Max Anikstein and Colton Carr, no such declarations or referenced evidence was filed concurrently with the motion.

Lyft late filed both declarations on February 19, 2026. “[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 Court days before the hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1005(b).) “ ‘[A] trial Court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers.’ ” [Citation.]” (Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186, 1210.)

As the failure to timely produce evidence appears to be an oversight, or clerical error, the Court will continue the hearing. Although, based on the argument contained in the opposition, it appears that Plaintiff was served with both declarations, Lyft will be required to re-serve them because the Carr declaration has no proof of service attached. The Anikstein declaration does have a proof of service but does not include the Carr declaration as having been served.

As an aside: By way of its motion, Lyft cites over 30 trial Court rulings with the intent of influencing the Court. That is improper. The rulings of other trial Courts are of no precedential value. “Even assuming for the sake of argument that the case in question involves the same issue as the case before us . . ., a written trial Court ruling has no precedential value. (In re Molz (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 836, 845 [“ ‘trial Court decisions, of course, have no precedential authority’ ”].)” (Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 761.) Lyft’s counsel should bear this in mind for any future filings in this Court.