DECISION & ORDER In accordance with CPLR 2219(a), this decision is made upon consideration of all papers filed in NYSCEF in connection with Motion Sequence No. 2, comprising plaintiff EMILY WU’s (“Wu”) motion and defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’s (“Uber”) cross-motion. Wu’s motion seeks an order (a) striking Uber’s Answer based on its alleged improper ex parte contact with Wu; (b) staying, pursuant to CPLR §7503, Uber’s demand for arbitration of Wu’s claims; and (c) setting this action down for a hearing to determine the appropriate monetary sanction and other penalties as may be warranted against Uber. Uber’s cross-motion, in turn, seeks an order (a) compelling Wu to arbitrate, before the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”), the claims against Uber and (b) dismissing Wu’s Complaint and any cross-claims asserted against Uber or, alternatively, staying the action and any cross-claims asserted against Uber until the arbitration is complete. For the reasons discussed below, Wu’s motion is DENIED, Uber’s cross-motion is GRANTED, and the action is STAYED. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This personal-injury action arises from a motor-vehicle accident. On July 25, 2020, Wu used the Uber software application (which Uber calls the “Rider App”) installed on her smartphone to hail an Uber vehicle. (Affidavit of Emily Wu, sworn to on April 7, 2021 (“Wu Moving Aff.”) [NYSCEF Doc. 23], 2; Affidavit of Ryan Buoscio, sworn to on May 12, 2021 (“Buoscio Aff.”) [NYSCEF Doc. 38], 8 & Ex. A; Affidavit of Alexander Perez, sworn to on May 12, 2021 (“Perez Aff.”) [NYSCEF Doc. 39], 2.) Defendant Jerry Alvarez, an Uber driver, responded to Wu’s cyber-hail. (Wu Moving Aff. 2.) Upon reaching the appointed destination in Brooklyn, Wu was discharged from Alvarez’s vehicle into the middle of the street, where she was struck by another vehicle and allegedly suffered injuries. (Id.) Wu filed the Complaint in this action on November 19, 2020. [NYSCEF Doc. 1] Wu alleges negligence against each of the defendants, including against Uber pursuant to a theory of respondeat superior. Wu served the Complaint on Uber a few days after its filing, on November 23, 2020, by personal service upon the New York Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), as authorized under BCL §306. [NYSCEF Doc. 2.] Uber acknowledges that service was properly made upon it but, as further addressed below, disputes that it received actual notice of the lawsuit contemporaneously with such service. (Affirmation of Rory L. Lubin, dated May 13, 2021 (“Lubin Affirm.”), at 15 n.2.) A. The January 2021 Email On January 15, 2021, approximately two months after Wu filed and served the Complaint, Uber sent an email to Wu with the subject line “Changes to our Terms of Use on January 18″ (the “January 2021 Email”). (Buoscio Aff. 16.) Uber asserts that its non-legal operations team “caused the [January 2021 Email] to be sent to [Wu] on a mass basis along with millions of other registered U.S. Uber App users at the same time.” (Id. 17.) In the body of the January 2021 Email (reproduced in full in Figure 1 below), recipients were informed that changes to Uber’s Terms of Use would go into effect on January 18, 2021 (the “January 2021 Terms”), and that users of the Rider App would begin to see a pop-up screen in the application after that date asking them to review and confirm agreement to the January 2021 Terms before they could continue using the application. (Id. Ex. G.) Additionally, recipients of the January 2021 Email were expressly notified that the updates included, among other things, “changes to the Arbitration Agreement…and procedures and rules for filing a dispute against Uber.” (Id.) The January 2021 Terms were made available for the recipient’s review via hyperlinked text, which was distinguished from the surrounding black text by its blue color (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1 Source: Buoscio Aff. Ex. G According to Uber’s records, the January 2021 Email was sent to Wu at 8:10 p.m. on January 15, 2021, and it was opened by Wu approximately two hours later at 10:04 p.m. (Buoscio Aff. Ex. F.) Wu does not dispute receiving, opening, or reading the January 2021 Email. (See generally Wu Moving Aff.) Wu does not state, one way or the other, however, whether she reviewed the hyperlinked January 2021 Terms, although Wu’s submitted affidavit implies that Wu did not. (See generally id.) B. Uber’s Notice of Wu’s Complaint Uber claims that it did not have actual notice of Wu’s filing of this action and of Wu’s legal representation when the January 2021 Email was sent. (Buoscio Aff. 23.) According to Uber, when Wu served the Complaint on the Secretary on November 23, 2020, the Secretary was sending legal process for Uber to its regional office at 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York. (Id. 26.) That regional office, however, had been closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. 24.) Mail sent there was, as a result, allegedly not being fully processed until the office reopened in April 2021. (Id. 25.) Thus, Uber claims, the Complaint was not processed and did not actually come to Uber’s attention until after January 15, 2021. (See id.
23, 26.) Uber claims that it first became aware of Wu’s lawsuit and legal representation on February 25, 2021, after a copy of the Complaint was mailed to Uber’s registered agent, CT Corporation, which, in turn, provided the Complaint directly to Uber via email and via regular mail to its headquarters in San Francisco, California. (See id. 27; Reply Affirmation of Rory L. Lubin, dated June 18, 2021 (“Lubin Reply Affirm.”), Ex. A.) Wu responds to Uber’s claims with a list of more than 80 other cases, drawn from NYSCEF searches, in which Uber was allegedly served via the Secretary and then entered an appearance in the action during the period in which Uber alleges that its New York office was closed due to the pandemic. (See Affidavit of Candi Lee, sworn to on June 3, 2021 (“Lee Aff.”) [NYSCEF Doc. 44],
