Legal Opinion
Magana v. Doordash, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 22, 2018No. Case No. 18-cv-03395-PJHPublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
A. DoorDash's Motion to Compel Arbitration
"The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability." Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC, 55 Cal. 4th 223, 236, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 514, 282 P.3d 1217 (2012).
The "first principle" that underlies the U.S. Supreme Court's arbitration decisions is that "[a]rbitration is strictly a matter of consent and thus is a way to resolve those disputes-but only those disputes -that the parties…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Bernadean Rittmann v. amazon.com, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2019
- Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines, LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Mcgovern v. U.S. Bank N.A.District Court, S.D. California · 2019
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.