Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
ERICK F. ELIAS, : Index No.: 811079/2023
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - :
:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, UBER U.S.A., LLC, : AFFIRMATION IN
L.D. PAULINO MENDEZ AND “JOHN DOE” AN : SUPPORT OF ORDER TO
UNKNOWN OPERATOR : SHOW CAUSE TO STAY
Defendants. :
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
ARMAND V. MAGARDICIAN, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before
the Courts of the State of New York, upon information and belief, hereby affirms the following to
be true pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of perjury:
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a member of the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and UBER USA, LLC
i/s/h/a UBER U.S.A., LLC (hereinafter collectively, “Uber”). I am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances contained herein based upon, inter alia, a review of the file maintained by my office
in the course of the defense of this action. This Affirmation is submitted in support of Uber’s
application for an Order (1) staying this action, and all discovery proceedings until after the
arbitration between Plaintiff and Uber, pending at the American Arbitration Association, Case No.
01-23-0005-1029 is completed; and (2) for such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and appropriate under the circumstances.
2. Uber has not made a prior application for the relief requested herein.
4
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
1 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Notice to Opposing Counsel of Uber’s Present Application
Exhibit B: Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint
Exhibit C: Arbitration Agreement
Exhibit D: Notice of Intention to Arbitrate
Exhibit E: Certified Mail Tracking Receipt
Exhibit F: AAA Confirmation
Exhibit G: Benmelech v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 702272/2021 (Queens
County)
Exhibit H: Robinson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 701306/2022 (Queens County)
Exhibit I: Ledain v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 526169/2021 (Kings County)
Exhibit J: Corchado v. Uber Technologies Inc., Index No. 526082/2021 (Kings County)
Exhibit K: Guevara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 510368/2020 (Kings
County)
Exhibit L: Roman Pelech v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 713456/2022
(Queens County)
Exhibit M: Theron J. Charles v. Christopher Beeke, et. al, Index No. 529300/2022 (Kings
County)
Exhibit N: Lalmi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 513027/2022 (Kings County)
Exhibit O: Natalie Campbell v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Index No. 502338/2023
Kings County
Exhibit P: Rivas v. Fnu Samiullah, et. al, Index No. 536325/2022 (Kings County)
3. The dispute between Plaintiff and Uber arises from a motor vehicle accident that
allegedly occurred on March 4, 2023, in Bronx, New York. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle
at the time of the subject accident. Plaintiff connected with the driver of that vehicle through his
use of the rider version of the Uber App (“Rider App”).
4. Plaintiff filed a Summons and Complaint in the Bronx County Supreme Court
under Index No. 811079/2023E. See Complaint annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”. In his Verified
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries as a result of the driver’s
negligence. Furthermore, Plaintiff incorrectly alleges that Uber owned the subject vehicle and
is the driver’s employer and, therefore, liable for his negligence. See id.
5. Plaintiff’s Complaint was improperly brought in the Supreme Court because
plaintiff agreed to arbitrate the exact claims he asserts in this action. See Arbitration Agreement
5
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
2 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 1 Plaintiff utilized the Rider App to request a ride, and the driver
accepted that ride request and picked up Plaintiff at this location. When Plaintiff created his
account to use the Rider App (“Uber Account”), he consented to Uber’s terms and conditions that
included a clear and unambiguous arbitration provision. In addition, when Plaintiff used the Rider
App on or after March 4, 2023, he agreed to arbitrate the claims asserted in this action (“Arbitration
Agreement”), as those claims fall squarely within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.
Defendant’s CPLR 7503(c) Demand
6. Based on the Agreement to Arbitrate this dispute, on August 31, 2023, Uber timely
served Plaintiff with a Notice of Intention to Arbitrate pursuant to CPLR § 7503(c) (hereinafter
“7503(c) Demand”) via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. See Notice of Intention to
Arbitration, annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”.
7. Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the 7503(c) Demand on September 7, 2023. See
USPS Tracking Receipt, attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. The 7503(c) Demand complied with all
the requirements of CPLR § 7503(c). See CPLR § 7503.
8. Pursuant to CPLR §7503(c), if Plaintiff wanted to challenge the enforceability or
validity of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff was required to file a motion or petition to stay the
arbitration within twenty (20) days of service/receipt of the 7503(c) Demand. As such, Plaintiff
was required to file a petition or motion to stay arbitration by September 20, 2023. No petitions
or motions were filed within the 20-day statutory period. Plaintiff is, accordingly, “precluded from
1
While the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement are not at issue here, and this order to show cause petition is
limited to Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to stay arbitration within the allotted 20 day time period prescribed by CPLR 7503(c),
New York Courts routinely find this identical arbitration agreement valid and enforceable under New York law. See Brooks v. Yang
& Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., 216 A.D.3d 505 (1st Dep’t 2023); Wu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., 219 A.D.3d 1208 (1st
Dep’t 2023); and Mejia v. Linares et al., 2023 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 4795 (1st Dep’t 2023).
6
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
3 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
objecting that a valid agreement was not made or has not been complied with.” Pursuant to CPLR
§ 7503, Plaintiff has waived her right to contest the arbitration.
9. Given Plaintiff’s failure to move to stay the arbitration within her allotted 20-day
statutory time period, Uber initiated an arbitration proceeding with the American Arbitration
Association on or around November 9, 2023. See confirmation from the AAA acknowledging
initiation of the arbitration proceeding, annexed hereto as Exhibit “F.”
10. This Court does not need to address whether a valid Arbitration Agreement was
made because Plaintiff failed to timely file or serve a petition or motion to stay the arbitration in
accordance with CPLR 7503(c) and is, therefore, precluded from objecting that a valid agreement
was made or has not been complied with. The only issue before the Court now is whether a stay
must be imposed so that two different tribunals are not adjudicating the same issues and so that
Uber’s rights are not prejudiced by having to litigate its dispute with plaintiff in two different
forums.
11. Moreover, Uber has already begun to prosecute its arbitration against Plaintiff.
Pursuant to their arbitration agreement, Uber filed a demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association. The AAA has acknowledged receipt of the demand and assigned the
arbitration proceeding Case No. 01-23-0005-1029. See Exhibit “F”.
ARGUMENT
I. THE ACTION MUST BE STAYED PENDING THE COMPLETION OF
ARBITRATION.
12. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires a stay. The FAA states that, the judge
“shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been
7
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
4 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 3.2
13. Likewise, CPLR § 7503(a) provides that where an “application [to compel
arbitration] is granted, the order shall operate to stay a pending or subsequent action.” Here, since
Plaintiff has waived her right to contest arbitration, arbitration is the process by which the dispute
between plaintiff and Uber must be adjudicated. The arbitration proceeding is already underway
at the American Arbitration Association under Case No. 01-23-0005-1029. Uber now requests that
this Court stay this action pending completion of that arbitration proceeding.
14. Similarly, this Court has discretion to grant a stay of this action upon such terms as
may be just pursuant to CPLR § 2201. See, e.g., Michilli, Inc. v. Aquavit, Inc., 2021 N.Y. Slip. Op.
(N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 29, 2021) (ordering a stay due to a pending arbitration proceeding); see also
Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 44 Misc.2d 872 (N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 12,
1964); Trieber v. Hopson, 27 A.D. 2d 151 (3d Dep’t 1967).
15. “[W]here arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the
proper course is to stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, particularly
where the determination of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters.” See
Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v. Settlement Servs. Arbitration & Mediation, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 479,
105 N.Y.S.3d 520 (2d Dep’t 2019); Weiss v. Nath, 97 A.D.3d 661, 663-64, 949 N.Y.S.2d 81, 84
(2d Dep’t 2012).
16. In fact, in Benmelech v. Perez, et al, Index No. 702272/2021 (Queens County), the
Court granted Uber Technologies, Inc. the exact relief Uber seeks in the instant matter. See Order
attached hereto as Exhibit “G.” Recently, Courts throughout the State of New York have followed
2
Pursuant to Section 2(c) of the subject arbitration agreement, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.SC. § 1 et seq. (“FAA”)
governs its interpretation, enforcement, and the proceedings under it.
8
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
5 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
suit and routinely issued stays of Supreme Court actions pending completion of Uber’s arbitration
against claimants/plaintiffs. See e.g., Robinson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No.
701306/2022 (Queens County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “H”; Ledain, et al v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 526169/2021, Order attached hereto as Exhibit “I”; Corchado
v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Index No. 505911/2021 (Kings County), Order attached hereto
as Exhibit “J”; White v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Index No. 725354/2020 (Queens County),
Order attached hereto as Exhibit “K”; Guevara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No.
510368/2020 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “L”; Pelech v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., et al, Index No. 713456/2022 (Queens County); Charles v. Christopher Beele et al., Index
No. 529300/2022 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “M”; Lalmi v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Index No. 513027/2022 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit
“N”; Natalie Campbell v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Index No. 502338/2023 (Kings County),
Order attached hereto as Exhibit “O”; and Rivas v. Fnu Samiullah, et. al, Index No. 536325/2022
(Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “P”.
17. Uber respectfully submits that the Court exercise its discretion and follow this
growing precedent by staying the instant litigation pending the completion of Uber’s arbitration
with Plaintiff in AAA.
18. Uber has not made a prior application for the relief requested herein.
CONCLUSION
19. For the foregoing reasons, Uber respectfully requests that the Court grant this
motion and an immediate stay of the action, including all discovery, while this motion is heard and
decided and, ultimately, until the completion of the ongoing arbitration proceeding.
9
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
6 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue an Order granting the
instant application in its entirety; and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
December 15, 2023
Yours, etc.,
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
By: Armand V. Magardician, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
UBER USA, LLC
150 E. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 915-5669
armand.magardician@wilsonelser.com
TO: OFSHTEIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERICK F. ELIAS
1723 E. 12th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11229
T: (718) 455-5252
L.D. PAULINO MENDEZ
269 East Burnside Avenue
Bronx, NY 10457
10
288515292v.1
288922660v.1288922660v.1
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X ERICK F. ELIAS, : Index No.: 811079/2023 Plaintiff, : : - against - : : UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, UBER U.S.A., LLC, : AFFIRMATION IN L.D. PAULINO MENDEZ AND “JOHN DOE” AN : SUPPORT OF ORDER TO UNKNOWN OPERATOR : SHOW CAUSE TO STAY Defendants. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X ARMAND V. MAGARDICIAN, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, upon information and belief, hereby affirms the following to be true pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of perjury: INTRODUCTION 1. I am a member of the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and UBER USA, LLC i/s/h/a UBER U.S.A., LLC (hereinafter collectively, “Uber”). I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances contained herein based upon, inter alia, a review of the file maintained by my office in the course of the defense of this action. This Affirmation is submitted in support of Uber’s application for an Order (1) staying this action, and all discovery proceedings until after the arbitration between Plaintiff and Uber, pending at the American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-23-0005-1029 is completed; and (2) for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. 2. Uber has not made a prior application for the relief requested herein. 4 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 1 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Notice to Opposing Counsel of Uber’s Present Application Exhibit B: Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint Exhibit C: Arbitration Agreement Exhibit D: Notice of Intention to Arbitrate Exhibit E: Certified Mail Tracking Receipt Exhibit F: AAA Confirmation Exhibit G: Benmelech v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 702272/2021 (Queens County) Exhibit H: Robinson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 701306/2022 (Queens County) Exhibit I: Ledain v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 526169/2021 (Kings County) Exhibit J: Corchado v. Uber Technologies Inc., Index No. 526082/2021 (Kings County) Exhibit K: Guevara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 510368/2020 (Kings County) Exhibit L: Roman Pelech v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 713456/2022 (Queens County) Exhibit M: Theron J. Charles v. Christopher Beeke, et. al, Index No. 529300/2022 (Kings County) Exhibit N: Lalmi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 513027/2022 (Kings County) Exhibit O: Natalie Campbell v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Index No. 502338/2023 Kings County Exhibit P: Rivas v. Fnu Samiullah, et. al, Index No. 536325/2022 (Kings County) 3. The dispute between Plaintiff and Uber arises from a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on March 4, 2023, in Bronx, New York. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle at the time of the subject accident. Plaintiff connected with the driver of that vehicle through his use of the rider version of the Uber App (“Rider App”). 4. Plaintiff filed a Summons and Complaint in the Bronx County Supreme Court under Index No. 811079/2023E. See Complaint annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”. In his Verified Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries as a result of the driver’s negligence. Furthermore, Plaintiff incorrectly alleges that Uber owned the subject vehicle and is the driver’s employer and, therefore, liable for his negligence. See id. 5. Plaintiff’s Complaint was improperly brought in the Supreme Court because plaintiff agreed to arbitrate the exact claims he asserts in this action. See Arbitration Agreement 5 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 2 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 1 Plaintiff utilized the Rider App to request a ride, and the driver accepted that ride request and picked up Plaintiff at this location. When Plaintiff created his account to use the Rider App (“Uber Account”), he consented to Uber’s terms and conditions that included a clear and unambiguous arbitration provision. In addition, when Plaintiff used the Rider App on or after March 4, 2023, he agreed to arbitrate the claims asserted in this action (“Arbitration Agreement”), as those claims fall squarely within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Defendant’s CPLR 7503(c) Demand 6. Based on the Agreement to Arbitrate this dispute, on August 31, 2023, Uber timely served Plaintiff with a Notice of Intention to Arbitrate pursuant to CPLR § 7503(c) (hereinafter “7503(c) Demand”) via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. See Notice of Intention to Arbitration, annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”. 7. Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the 7503(c) Demand on September 7, 2023. See USPS Tracking Receipt, attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. The 7503(c) Demand complied with all the requirements of CPLR § 7503(c). See CPLR § 7503. 8. Pursuant to CPLR §7503(c), if Plaintiff wanted to challenge the enforceability or validity of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff was required to file a motion or petition to stay the arbitration within twenty (20) days of service/receipt of the 7503(c) Demand. As such, Plaintiff was required to file a petition or motion to stay arbitration by September 20, 2023. No petitions or motions were filed within the 20-day statutory period. Plaintiff is, accordingly, “precluded from 1 While the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement are not at issue here, and this order to show cause petition is limited to Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to stay arbitration within the allotted 20 day time period prescribed by CPLR 7503(c), New York Courts routinely find this identical arbitration agreement valid and enforceable under New York law. See Brooks v. Yang & Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., 216 A.D.3d 505 (1st Dep’t 2023); Wu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., 219 A.D.3d 1208 (1st Dep’t 2023); and Mejia v. Linares et al., 2023 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 4795 (1st Dep’t 2023). 6 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 3 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 objecting that a valid agreement was not made or has not been complied with.” Pursuant to CPLR § 7503, Plaintiff has waived her right to contest the arbitration. 9. Given Plaintiff’s failure to move to stay the arbitration within her allotted 20-day statutory time period, Uber initiated an arbitration proceeding with the American Arbitration Association on or around November 9, 2023. See confirmation from the AAA acknowledging initiation of the arbitration proceeding, annexed hereto as Exhibit “F.” 10. This Court does not need to address whether a valid Arbitration Agreement was made because Plaintiff failed to timely file or serve a petition or motion to stay the arbitration in accordance with CPLR 7503(c) and is, therefore, precluded from objecting that a valid agreement was made or has not been complied with. The only issue before the Court now is whether a stay must be imposed so that two different tribunals are not adjudicating the same issues and so that Uber’s rights are not prejudiced by having to litigate its dispute with plaintiff in two different forums. 11. Moreover, Uber has already begun to prosecute its arbitration against Plaintiff. Pursuant to their arbitration agreement, Uber filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. The AAA has acknowledged receipt of the demand and assigned the arbitration proceeding Case No. 01-23-0005-1029. See Exhibit “F”. ARGUMENT I. THE ACTION MUST BE STAYED PENDING THE COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION. 12. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires a stay. The FAA states that, the judge “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been 7 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 4 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 3.2 13. Likewise, CPLR § 7503(a) provides that where an “application [to compel arbitration] is granted, the order shall operate to stay a pending or subsequent action.” Here, since Plaintiff has waived her right to contest arbitration, arbitration is the process by which the dispute between plaintiff and Uber must be adjudicated. The arbitration proceeding is already underway at the American Arbitration Association under Case No. 01-23-0005-1029. Uber now requests that this Court stay this action pending completion of that arbitration proceeding. 14. Similarly, this Court has discretion to grant a stay of this action upon such terms as may be just pursuant to CPLR § 2201. See, e.g., Michilli, Inc. v. Aquavit, Inc., 2021 N.Y. Slip. Op. (N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 29, 2021) (ordering a stay due to a pending arbitration proceeding); see also Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 44 Misc.2d 872 (N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 12, 1964); Trieber v. Hopson, 27 A.D. 2d 151 (3d Dep’t 1967). 15. “[W]here arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the proper course is to stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, particularly where the determination of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters.” See Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v. Settlement Servs. Arbitration & Mediation, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 479, 105 N.Y.S.3d 520 (2d Dep’t 2019); Weiss v. Nath, 97 A.D.3d 661, 663-64, 949 N.Y.S.2d 81, 84 (2d Dep’t 2012). 16. In fact, in Benmelech v. Perez, et al, Index No. 702272/2021 (Queens County), the Court granted Uber Technologies, Inc. the exact relief Uber seeks in the instant matter. See Order attached hereto as Exhibit “G.” Recently, Courts throughout the State of New York have followed 2 Pursuant to Section 2(c) of the subject arbitration agreement, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.SC. § 1 et seq. (“FAA”) governs its interpretation, enforcement, and the proceedings under it. 8 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 5 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 suit and routinely issued stays of Supreme Court actions pending completion of Uber’s arbitration against claimants/plaintiffs. See e.g., Robinson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 701306/2022 (Queens County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “H”; Ledain, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 526169/2021, Order attached hereto as Exhibit “I”; Corchado v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Index No. 505911/2021 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “J”; White v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Index No. 725354/2020 (Queens County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “K”; Guevara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 510368/2020 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “L”; Pelech v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Index No. 713456/2022 (Queens County); Charles v. Christopher Beele et al., Index No. 529300/2022 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “M”; Lalmi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Index No. 513027/2022 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “N”; Natalie Campbell v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Index No. 502338/2023 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “O”; and Rivas v. Fnu Samiullah, et. al, Index No. 536325/2022 (Kings County), Order attached hereto as Exhibit “P”. 17. Uber respectfully submits that the Court exercise its discretion and follow this growing precedent by staying the instant litigation pending the completion of Uber’s arbitration with Plaintiff in AAA. 18. Uber has not made a prior application for the relief requested herein. CONCLUSION 19. For the foregoing reasons, Uber respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and an immediate stay of the action, including all discovery, while this motion is heard and decided and, ultimately, until the completion of the ongoing arbitration proceeding. 9 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 6 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 811079/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue an Order granting the instant application in its entirety; and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York December 15, 2023 Yours, etc., WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP By: Armand V. Magardician, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and UBER USA, LLC 150 E. 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 915-5669 armand.magardician@wilsonelser.com TO: OFSHTEIN LAW FIRM, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff ERICK F. ELIAS 1723 E. 12th St. Brooklyn, NY 11229 T: (718) 455-5252 L.D. PAULINO MENDEZ 269 East Burnside Avenue Bronx, NY 10457 10 288515292v.1 288922660v.1288922660v.1 7 of 7