Nido v. Lyft Incorporated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Rene Alex Nido,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lyft Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-00228-PHX-KML
ORDER
On January 20, 2026, defendant Lyft Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration. (Doc.
6.) Plaintiff Rene Alex Nido’s opposition to the motion to compel was due February 6,
2026, but Nido did not file an opposition. Local Rule 7.2(i) allows the court to summarily
grant a motion when no opposition is filed. That is appropriate here because the motion to
compel includes evidence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that covers
the claims Nido is attempting to pursue.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:26-cv-00228-KML Document 11 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to administratively
close this case, whereupon, by proper motion from a party, it may be reopened or dismissed
with prejudice.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00228-KML Document 11 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 2