What is an agreement formalized by electronic means (UETA)?

Useful Rulings on Agreement Formalized by Electronic Means (UETA)

Recent Rulings on Agreement Formalized by Electronic Means (UETA)

AHMED ISSA VS TESLA, INC.

Code, § 1633.9 (a) [under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person].) Defendant presents evidence that as a part of their employment agreement, the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement. At the start of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff signed an employment agreement under which he and Defendant agreed to arbitrate any disputes that arose between them (“Arbitration Agreement”). (White Decl. ¶ 5, Ex.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LOPEZ V. EXEL, INC.

Pursuant to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, found at Civil Code sections 1633.1 et seq., and Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, as well as the lack of evidence from plaintiff, the Court finds that an agreement to arbitrate exists. 2. Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Interpretation of contracts is solely judicial function where there is no extrinsic evidence. (Powers v. Dickson, Carson & Campillo (1997) 5 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1111.)

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NELSON GONZALEZ VS GUILLERMO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

Code § 1633.2(h) [defining “electronic signature” for purposes of the UETA].) In addition, as discussed above, Defendants have presented evidence of two agreements that contain a handwritten signature next to Plaintiff’s name. Although Plaintiff contests these agreements on other grounds, they cannot be contested on grounds related to electronic signatures, as they were signed by hand. Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to authenticate the agreements.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

SIMON VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

“Under Civil Code section 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature [“A … signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.”]).” (Ruiz v. Moss to its existence. Plaintiff has filed an objection to evidence, contesting the foundation for Kennedy’s identification of the arbitration agreement.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

MONICA SMITH VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE LUIS VENEGAS, ET AL. VS THE UNITED SOLAR, INC., DBA UNITED CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.

Non-Conformance to UETA Plaintiff contends that the March 16, 2017 agreement’s arbitration provision should not be enforced because United Solar has failed to comply with the court’s ruling on its last Petition to Compel Arbitration and submit evidence that the agreement conforms with the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (Opposition, 12-14.) United Solar contends that Plaintiffs have misstated the requirements for an electronic agreement and that the March 16, 2017 agreement is valid.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICKLIN V. OCEAN INSTITUTE

J.B.B. states, “Since Fair’s printed name was not a signature under UETA, the trial court erred when it concluded that Fair’s printed name at the bottom of the e-mail satisfied the strict signature requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Id., at pp. 990-991; footnote 4 omitted.) J.B.B. is distinguishable because the issue as to whether Fair’s signature qualified as an electronic signature arose in the context of an email exchange regarding a settlement agreement. (Id., at pp. 986-991.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

RACHEL GILGAR VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, ET AL

Goldstein (ret.) denied the motion because Public Storage had not met its evidentiary burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff consented to contract electronically under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”) and that Public Storage had failed to authenticate Plaintiff’s purported electronic signature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDMAN VS. ORINDA ACADEMY

Under UETA, Civil Code Section 1633.1, et seq., which became effective January 1, 2000, an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing, and an electronic signature satisfies the requirement that the writing be signed. See Civil Code Section 1633.7(c) and (d). “An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner. . . See Civil Code Section 1633.9(a).

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

KATHLEEN COLEMAN ET AL VS ANETTA SAGAR

It decided that “interpretation of UETA and the notice of acceptance was necessary to determine whether the acceptance was signed and unequivocal, and a trial court may not resolve such disputes when entering judgment under section 998.” Thus, while the Court of Appeal decided the trial court erred in determining the acceptance was valid, the Court of Appeal did not decide that the acceptance was invalid. Nor did the Court of Appeal decide whether the parties had formed a contract.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

IN RE THE ESTATE OF RICHARD JOHN LEVESQUE, DECEASED

See, under analogous law, the DMS Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), at Civil Code §§1633.1 et seq.; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836; Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047.) 3. Petition, Item 1: The name of the newspaper where publication will be made is blank. This information must be provided. 9:30 CALENDAR

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

GAVIN GONZALES VS CARSON LAPPETITO, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Electronic Signature “Under [California’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”)], which became effective January 1, 2000, an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing [Citation], and an electronic signature satisfies the requirement that the writing be signed [Citation]. “An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner . . . .”

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALEX NERUSH VS STUART GRANT ET AL

As counsel and the court seemed unaware, UETA defines the term “electronic signature.” Subdivision (h) of section 1633.2 states that “‘[e]lectronic signature’ means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record.”

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

MUHAMMAD FAISAL ADNAN VS PARSONS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Consent to Sign the Agreement by Electronic Means “Under [California’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act], which became effective January 1, 2000, an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing [Citation], and an electronic signature satisfies the requirement that the writing be signed [Citation]. “An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner . . . .”

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARCO ORTIZ VS RELATED ET AL

“Under Civil Code section 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq., added by Stats. 1999, ch. 428, § 1, pp. 2809–2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature [citation].” (Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 843.) “Still, any writing must be authenticated” before it may be received in evidence. (Ibid., citing Evid. Code, § 1401, People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1435 [135 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ESMERALDA HURTADO VS WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES INC ET AL

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9(a).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE A HERRERA VS. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC

The court continues the hearing on this motion, and on the OSC, to 9:00am. Plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Alfonso S. Preciado is granted. CCP §§ 2023.030(d), 2030.290(c). As this motion is unopposed, Preciado fails to provide any explanation for his failure to comply with this court's order of November 16, 2018. Base...

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE A HERRERA VS. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC

The court continues the hearing on this motion, and on the OSC, to 9:00am. Plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Alfonso S. Preciado is granted. CCP §§ 2023.030(d), 2030.290(c). As this motion is unopposed, Preciado fails to provide any explanation for his failure to comply with this court's order of November 16, 2018. Base...

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARCO MORENO VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HUDSON V. EXODUS RECOVERY, INC.

In 1999, the California Legislature enacted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”). C.C.P. §1633.9(a) within the UETA authorizes an electronic signature to be found valid if a security procedure is shown to confirm the identity of the person alleged to have assigned it. An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

OYEDELE VS. WINGARD

Further, plaintiffs’ claim is not barred as a matter of law by the Statute of Frauds or the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Plaintiffs allege that a contract was formed for them to purchase defendants’ home in San Ramon California on July 28, 2014 for $1,754,399.00 with no set time for performance. (SAC, ¶ 7.) The contract was extended several times over the years. Defendants finally repudiated it in January 2017. (SAC, ¶ 9.) 1. Was there a contract?

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2019

HILLIARD VS. MCCORMACK

., 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843 (2014)(“Under Civil Code section 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature” (internal citations omitted; Cloud Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

STEVEN GORDON VS GERALD THOMAS INC ET AL

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STEVEN GORDON VS GERALD THOMAS INC ET AL

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARCO MORENO VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9(a).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.