Umstead v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Civil Action No. 24-1007 (RBW) (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · February 13, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 24-1007 (RBW)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considers Uber defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claims arising from an automobile collision. The court concludes that plaintiffs Stephanie Umstead and Michael Fontaine agreed to Uber’s arbitration terms, while plaintiff Louis Nicoletti did not form an arbitration agreement with Uber or qualify as a third-party beneficiary. The excerpt indicates that the court granted arbitration as to Umstead and Fontaine, denied arbitration as to Nicoletti, denied dismissal, and stayed proceedings as to Umstead and Fontaine pending arbitration.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Writing for the Court
Reggie B. Walton
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
February 13, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 24-1007 (RBW)
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs filed negligence and negligence-per-se claims in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Defendants removed the action to federal district court, and Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Raiser-DC, LLC moved to compel arbitration and dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Standard of review
A motion to compel arbitration is treated as a request for summary disposition on whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate and is analyzed under the summary-judgment standard. The party seeking arbitration bears the initial burden of producing evidence of an enforceable agreement; the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show a genuine dispute of material fact. State contract law governs formation, while the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, subject to an enforceable delegation clause, whether the dispute is arbitrable.
Precedential value
published district court memorandum opinion
Disposition
other

Topics

arbitrationcontract formationmotions to dismisscivil procedure

Practice areas

arbitrationcontractscivil procedurepersonal injury

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Umstead and Fontaine formed enforceable agreements to arbitrate by affirmatively checking the box agreeing to Uber's December 2021 Terms of Use.
  2. Whether Nicoletti, who had no Uber account and never agreed to Uber's Terms of Use, was nevertheless bound to arbitrate as a nonsignatory or third-party beneficiary.
  3. Whether the Terms of Use's delegation clause was clear and unmistakable and enforceable.
  4. Whether the proceedings should be dismissed or stayed pending arbitration, including whether claims against the nonarbitrating driver should also be stayed.

Holdings

  1. Umstead and Fontaine formed contracts with Uber, including enforceable arbitration agreements, when they checked the box confirming that they had reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and clicked confirm.
  2. Nicoletti did not form an agreement to arbitrate with Uber because he had no Uber account, never interacted with Uber's application or website, and never manifested an intent to be bound by the Terms of Use.
  3. Nicoletti was not bound by the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary or under another traditional contract or agency principle.
  4. The delegation clause was clear and unmistakable and enforceable, so an arbitrator, rather than the court, must resolve threshold arbitrability questions concerning Umstead's and Fontaine's claims.
  5. The court was required to stay Umstead's and Fontaine's proceedings pending arbitration rather than dismiss their claims, and it also stayed the claims against the nonarbitrating driver because they shared common factual and legal issues. The court declined to stay Nicoletti's claims.

Key quotations

Accordingly, the Court concludes that a contract was formed between plaintiff Umstead and Uber and between plaintiff Fontaine and Uber when these plaintiffs checked the box and clicked confirm. (at 8)
The Court, therefore, cannot conclude that merely accompanying his two friends, one of whom had secured the services of the Uber driver defendant, resulted in plaintiff Nicoletti entering into a contract with Uber. (at 10)
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Delegation Clause is enforceable and, because the plaintiffs and the Uber Defendants agreed to delegate threshold questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, the Court finds that arbitration of both plaintiffs Umstead’s and Fontaine’s claims is required. (at 15)
Accordingly, the Court will stay these proceedings as to plaintiffs Umstead’s and Fontaine’s claims against the Uber defendants. (at 15-16)

Factual background

Umstead and Fontaine maintained Uber Rides accounts and, after Uber updated its Terms of Use in December 2021, affirmatively checked a box confirming that they had reviewed and agreed to the Terms of Use and acknowledged the Privacy Notice. Those Terms contained a broad arbitration agreement and a delegation clause assigning threshold arbitrability issues to an arbitrator. Nicoletti had no Uber account, never interacted with Uber's application or website, and never agreed to the Terms of Use. All three plaintiffs rode in an Uber vehicle on December 10, 2022, and alleged that the driver caused a high-speed collision that injured them.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs initiated the action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on March 16, 2024. Defendants removed the case on April 9, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. The Uber Defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss; the court granted arbitration as to Umstead and Fontaine, denied arbitration as to Nicoletti, denied dismissal, and stayed the proceedings concerning Umstead and Fontaine against all defendants pending arbitration. The court declined to stay Nicoletti's claims.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…