ORDER RE: PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION; PETITION GRANTED

On October 26, 2017 Plaintiff Shayan Fadaee (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber”), and David Moosari (“Moosari”) for negligence, negligent entrustment, fraud, battery, negligence per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that on December 3, 2016, he used the Uber Application to order a ride home and Uber driver Moosari picked him and his girlfriend up. Moosari began a conversation with Plaintiff regarding their differing religious affiliations. At some point, Moosari pulled over on the freeway and ordered Plaintiff and his girlfriend to get out. When they refused, Moosari exited the freeway to a 7-Eleven parking lot. There, Plaintiff alleges Moosari escalated the argument and wielded a weapon, stabbing Plaintiff multiple times.Uber moves to compel arbitration of this action on grounds Plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of the use of Uber’s Mobile Software Application. Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement is not valid, as Plaintiff had neither actual or inquiry notice of the arbitration clause. Further, Plaintiff contends that even if the arbitration agreement is valid, Plaintiff’s claims fall outside the scope of the agreement.“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §1281.2, subds. (a), (b).)The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. (Fagelbaum & Heller LLP v. Smylie (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1363.) Courts “use general principles of Californi... ..........................................................