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)

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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

WALTER GARCIA VS PDS TECH, INC., ET AL.

JBB relied on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act to conclude that the mere fact that an email was in the record did not establish that the purported sender had agreed to transact business by email. Defendant herein, however, submitted Exhibit 2 to the Van Dyke declaration, which included an electronic consent agreement. Plaintiff fails to address that agreement in the opposition, and therefore failed to show that he did not consent to conduct business electronically. Is the Agreement Fraudulent?

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JUDSON ABTS, ET AL. VS RAYMOND LEE

Plaintiffs counter that Lee’s electronic communications with Plaintiffs (emails and text messages) constitute electronic signatures pursuant to the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Plaintiffs specifically cite to Civil Code section 1633.7, which provides in pertinent part that “[i]f a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.” Plaintiffs contend that Lee’s July 24, 2019 email constitutes written confirmation of the Lease and is an enforceable signature.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CARIN PALACIOS VS NOWHERE SANTA MONICA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Code § 1633.1 & 16337(a)). But any writing must be authenticated before the writing may be received in evidence. (Cal. Evid. Code 1401). “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, 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.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PRISCILLA CAMPOS VS CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC

Under the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature. (Civ. Code, §1633.7, subd. (a) [“[a]…signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form”].) The UETA permits enforcement of electronic signatures when the evidence shows that a signing party “agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.5, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

Jose Venegas, attests that he does not recall electronically signing any arbitration agreement, (2) even if Plaintiff, Jose Venegas, signed an agreement, Plaintiff, Alicia Venegas’ signature does not appear on any agreement and, as such, the arbitration agreement(s) cannot be enforced against her, (3) the March 16, 2017 agreement is a new contract not a change order and accordingly it supersedes the original contract, and (4) United Solar does not establish that the March 16, 2017 agreement conforms to the UETA

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PHILIP SCHECTOR VS GHP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code § 1633.1 & 16337(a)). That being said, any writing must be authenticated before the writing may be received in evidence. (Cal. Evid. Code 1401). “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, 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.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ETIENNE YANSUNNU VS HILTON LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, ET AL.

Code § 1633.1, et seq. Civ. Code § 1633.7 states: “(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. (b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation. (c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law. (d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.” Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 load this page.