Torres, Jr. v. Airbnb, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01378
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEFTALY TORRES, JR., et al., Case No. 25-cv-01378-AMO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS VERIFIED PETITION TO 9 v. VACATE ARBITRATION ORDER

10 AIRBNB, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 14 Defendant. 11

12 13 Following the tragic death of their father, Plaintiffs Neftaly Torres, Jr., individually and as 14 personal representative of the Estate of Neftaly Torres, Sr., and Aliah Torres filed a complaint in 15 San Francisco Superior Court against Defendant Airbnb, Inc. for wrongful death, negligence, and 16 negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.1 Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. No. 1-1). Airbnb 17 removed the action, filed on July 8, 2022, to this Court on July 12, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. After 18 Plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to remand the action to state court, the parties stipulated to submit 19 all claims to binding arbitration. Dkt. Nos. 6, 13, 24, 37, 38. The underlying action – Torres Jr. 20 v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-04087-AMO – was then stayed and administratively closed pending 21 completion of arbitration. Dkt. Nos. 38, 40. 22 On November 9, 2024, the arbitrator issued an order resolving Plaintiffs’ claims in favor of 23 Airbnb. Declaration of Kajsa M. Minor in Support of Airbnb, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Verified 24 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Cross-Petition to Confirm 25 Arbitration Order (Dkt. No. 14-1) ¶ 5. The American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) emailed 26 all parties the order on November 14, 2024. Id. Seeking to vacate the arbitration order, on 27 1 February 10, 2025, Plaintiffs commenced a second civil action – Torres Jr. v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 2 3:25-cv-01378-AMO – and served Airbnb with the initiating documents on February 19, 2025. 3 Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order (“Petition”) (Dkt. No. 1); Summons Returned 4 Executed (Dkt. No. 6). Airbnb moves to dismiss the Petition and cross-moves to confirm the 5 arbitration order on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ petition is untimely and fails on the merits. Motion 6 to Dismiss Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Cross- 7 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Order (Dkt. No. 14); Reply Brief in Support of Airbnb, Inc.’s 8 Motion to Dismiss Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 9 Cross-Petition to Confirm Arbitration Order (Dkt. No. 20). Plaintiffs oppose. Opposition to 10 Airbnb’s Motion to Dismiss Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order Pursuant to Rule 11 12(b)(6) and Cross-Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Opp.”) (Dkt. No. 18). Because the 12 untimeliness of Plaintiffs’ Petition is dispositive, the Court takes that issue up first without 13 reaching the remaining substantive issues Airbnb raises in its motion. 14 The Federal Arbitration Act requires that “[n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, or 15 correct an award . . . be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the 16 award is filed or delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12. The AAA delivered the arbitrator’s order on 17 November 14, 2024. Plaintiffs filed the Petition commencing this action on February 10, 2025 but 18 did not serve Airbnb with the Petition until February 19, 2025, after the 90-day period to serve 19 expired on February 14, 2025. The Petition is therefore untimely. See Stevens v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, 20 Inc., 911 F.3d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming denial of petition where “[t]he arbitrator 21 delivered the final award on September 14, 2016, and the [petitioners] filed th[e] lawsuit and 22 served [the respondent] on December 15, 2016[,]” which was “[t]hree months and one day after 23 [the] arbitrator ruled against them.”); see also ITN Flix, LLC v. Trejo, 850 F. App’x 589 (9th Cir. 24 2021) (affirming trial court’s decision to deny petition to vacate and grant cross-petition to 25 confirm arbitration award where the “petition to vacate the arbitration award was untimely[,]” 26 having not been served on the opposing party or his counsel “within three months after the final 27 arbitration award was delivered.”). 1 neglect, good cause, and lack of prejudice, fails. Assuming, without deciding, that these doctrines 2 apply in this context, Plaintiffs have made no showing justifying their failure to timely serve their 3 Petition as required. Plaintiffs assert, without providing sworn facts, that “the process server was 4 unable to, or simply failed to, serve Airbnb before the three months. This is precisely the type of 5 excusable neglect that justifies an extension of time for service.” Opp. at 9. Plaintiffs also assert 6 that “there is good cause for the late service and Petitioners’ actions constitute at worst, excusable 7 neglect.” Id. at 10. They claim, “[t]he petition was timely. And Petitioners made efforts to serve 8 the petition within the three-month deadline. Even still, the documents were served only four days 9 late (the three months ended on a Saturday, Monday was Presidents’ Day).” Id. Third, Plaintiffs 10 contend “there is no prejudice to Airbnb,” which, according to Plaintiffs, “is a sophisticated 11 company that monitors court dockets[,] . . . removed the original state court case to federal court 12 the day after the summons was issued, and before Petitioners could even serve the lawsuit.” Id. at 13 10. Plaintiffs assert, without support, that “[t]here is good reason to believe that Airbnb had notice 14 of the petition the day it was filed or soon after.” Id. at 10-11. Fourth, Plaintiffs claim that they 15 “made good faith efforts to file and serve the petition on time. The service fell short for reasons 16 out of [their] control.” Id. at 12. Finally, Plaintiffs make the following request:

17 [I]f the Court is inclined to dismiss the petition on the basis that Airbnb did not have proper notice, Petitioners ask for a deferral on 18 the dismissal and an order compelling Airbnb to respond to discovery requests and to produce a corporate representative 19 deposition to testimony on narrowly tailored notice topics. Petitioners anticipate that Airbnb will argue that it did not have 20 notice. But that argument would be disingenuous based on this case where Airbnb knew the lawsuit was filed long before Petitioners 21 served the company and snap-removed Petitioners’ state court case to avoid a state court venue. 22 23 Opp. at 11. 24 Plaintiffs offer no legal authority for their request to defer dismissal and allow discovery 25 nor any specific facts in support of their arguments. Instead, they rely on a declaration that only 26 generally “attest[s to] that the facts as outlined in Petitioners’ Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order 27 and their Opposition to Airbnb’s motion to dismiss the petition and Cross-Petition to Confirm 1 Airbnb’s Motion to Dismiss Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Order Pursuant to Rule 2 12(b)(6) and Cross-Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 18-7) 4 2. This demonstrates 3 yet another instance of noncompliance with applicable requirements, as Civil Local Rule 7-5 4 || provides that: 5 (a) Affidavit or Declaration Required. Factual contentions made in support of or in opposition to any motion must 6 be supported by an affidavit or declaration and by appropriate references to the record. Extracts from depositions, interrogatory 7 answers, requests for admission and other evidentiary matters must 3 be appropriately authenticated by an affidavit or declaration. (b) Form. An affidavit or declaration may contain only 9 facts, must conform as much as possible to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), and must avoid conclusions and argument. Any 10 statement made upon information or belief must specify the basis therefor. An affidavit or declaration not in compliance with this rule 11 may be stricken in whole or in part. 12 || Civil L.R. 7-5. Without facts demonstrating that Plaintiffs are entitled to assert any of theories

13 they advance in their opposition, the Court finds no grounds to excuse the untimeliness of

v 14 || Plaintiffs’ Petition. Dismissal due to untimeliness is thus warranted. Plaintiffs’ Petition to Vacate

15 the Arbitration Order is therefore DENIED, and Airbnb’s Cross-Petition to Confirm the Order is Qa 16 GRANTED on that basis. See Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008)

= 17 (“Under the terms of § 9, a court ‘must’ confirm an arbitration award ‘unless’ it is vacated,

Zz 18 modified, or corrected ‘as prescribed’ in §§ 10 and 11.”). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 10, 2025 21 - 22

74 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28