Uber argues that it does not have to pay the $179 million Levandowski owes Google, in its reply to Levandowski’s motion to compel arbitration. While Levandowski previously argued that Uber was legally obliged to pay this sum, Uber disagrees. Uber has agreed to arbitrate the key disagreement in the case with Levandowski over an indemnification agreement.
Uber also states that it “does not oppose the ultimate relief sought in the Motion to Compel Arbitration.” Uber has provided this response because of the “factual inaccuracies asserted by Levandowski” and because “Uber rescinded the Indemnification Agreement several months prior to the inception of Levandowski’s bankruptcy case because it was procured by his fraud.”
Uber claims that Levandowski falsely stated he did not bring confidential Google information to Uber when he entered the Agreement with Uber to acquire his company, Otto. Levandowski claimed he “provided good faith, complete and truthful responses in all material respects to Stroz’s questions.” Further, he claimed he did not bring over any confidential information from Google.
Afterward, Google sued both Levandowski and Uber in separate lawsuits; at first, Uber believed Levandowski’s explanations for what he had downloaded, never stating that these downloads included trade secrets. Google’s suit against Levandowski also did not mention him stealing trade secrets. Before the arbitration hearing, Uber informed Levandowski that the company would not pay what he owed for an award and that the company could recover their fees from him.
Levandowski was later charged with 33 counts of trade secret theft and attempted trade secret theft by federal prosecutors, illustrating to Uber his misleading and false claims when the parties entered the Indemnification Agreement. After learning about his charge, Uber informed Levandowski that they were rescinding the Indemnification Agreement. Recently, Levandowski pled guilty to trade secret theft, which Uber states is evidence that it was right to rescind the Agreement and that said agreement is neither valid nor enforceable. Uber adds that if the agreement was enforceable, a large amount of Google’s judgment is allotted to an “excluded claim” that is not subject to indemnification.
Uber states that “[b]ecause Uber agrees to arbitrate the dispute over its rescission of the Indemnification Agreement as well as all other issues relating to the indemnification disputes, the Court should enter an order denying Levandowsi’s motion as moot.” Additionally, Uber states that the arbitrators should determine “whether an agreement that contains an arbitration clause has been fraudulently procured and is, therefore, validly rescinded.” Uber states that this disagreement should be resolved through arbitration. Uber has asked the court to deny Levandowski’s motion as moot.
Levandowski withdrew his motion to compel arbitration against Uber because of Uber’s response asking to arbitrate his claims to enforce Uber to fulfill its obligations in the Indemnification Agreement.
