The Nevada Supreme Court recently reversed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, explaining that the plaintiff’s arguments that the contract at issue was illegal were not a valid basis to deny arbitration because those arguments did not challenge the validity of the arbitration clause or delegation clause specifically, as is required to preclude arbitration.
Several individuals sued a company that operates the Uber app, including Uber’s Uber Pool feature. They claimed that Uber Pool was operating in Nevada illegally, without required licenses.
The company, Rasier LLC, moved to compel arbitration under the Uber app’s terms of service. The district court denied that motion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply and that the terms of service were void in light of the allegations that Uber Pool was operating illegally.
The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed. It noted that “the FAA applies to contracts evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce” and that the FAA therefore applied here. The court also noted that a party must challenge an arbitration clause itself, not the validity of a contract generally, to avoid arbitration. The plaintiffs only “generally challenge the Terms of Service and not the arbitration agreement or delegation clause specifically.” The motion to compel therefore should have been granted for the arbitrator to consider the merits.
Rasier, LLC v. Boykin, No. 84814 (Nev. Aug. 24, 2023).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
