Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
"'Under Civil Code § 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq.; Stats. 1999, ch. 428, § 1, pp. 2809–2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature...' Civ. Code, § 1633.7(a) ('A ... signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.')." Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843; see also Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1061.
"Still, any writing must be authenticated” before it may be received in evidence. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843, citing Evid. Code, § 1401.
“Authentication of a writing means
Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843, citing Evid. Code, § 1400; see also People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1436 (proponent meets its burden of producing evidence to show authenticity of writing “‘when sufficient evidence has been produced to sustain a finding that the document is what it purports to be.’”); People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1178, 1187 (“[w]riting can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence and by its contents.”).
"The means of authenticating a writing are not limited to those specified in the Evidence Code.(§ 1410 ['[n]othing in this article shall be construed to limit the means by which a writing may be authenticated or proved']; People v. Gibson (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 371, 383.) 'For example, a writing can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence and by its contents.' (Id.; Young v. Sorenson (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 911, 915.)" People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1178, 1187.
"Civil Code § 1633.9 addresses how a proponent of an electronic signature may authenticate the signature—that is, show the signature is, in fact, the signature of the person the proponent claims it is. The statute states: '(a) 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.' (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a), italics added.)" Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., Inc.(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843.; See also Code of Civ. Proc., § 1633.2(h) (an “‘[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.”). A printed name or some other symbol might, under specific circumstances, be a signature under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (J.B.B. Inv. Partners, Ltd. v. Fair, 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 988 (2014).)
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).
The effect of such electronic signature is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, execution, or adoption, including the parties’ agreement. Civ. Code., § 1633.9(b); see also Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1062.
“[T]he burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) The means of authenticating a writing are not limited to those specified in the Evidence Code; a writing can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence and by its contents. (People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1178, 1187.) A petitioner is not required to authenticate the opposing party’s signature as part of their initial burden or where the authenticity of the signature is never challenged. (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at 1059.) However, when the opposing party “challenge[s] the validity of that signature in his opposition,” then the petitioner needs “to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at 1060; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 842-43.)
To meet the requirements for authenticating an electronic signature, the petitioner must submit a declaration explaining how the opposing party’s printed electronic signature, as well as the date and time printed next to the signature, came to be placed on the arbitration agreement. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (“Ruiz”) (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 843). The declarant must explain how, or upon what basis, she inferred that the electronic signature on the arbitration agreement was “the act of” the opposing party. (Id.) A summary assertion that the opposing party was the person who electronically signed the arbitration agreement is insufficient. (Id.)
In Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, the Court concluded the validity of an electronic signature had been proven because the declaration offered the critical factual connection that the declarations in Ruiz lacked, by detailing security precautions regarding transmission and use of an applicant’s unique username and password, as well as the steps an applicant would have to take to place his or her name on the signature line of the agreement. Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1062.
The UETA “applies only to a transaction between parties each of which has agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1633.5(b); J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974.)
Discussion The Cross-Complaint asserts three causes of action against ACIC: (1) violation of California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq., (2) breach of contract, and (3) misrepresentation. A. Demurrer i. Violation of California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq. (First Cause of Action) Lynch alleges that the Agreement has his electronic signature, but the electronic signature fails to comply with the UETA. (Answer/Cross-Compl. ¶ 22.)
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS LYNCH, STUART M
17K06335
Feb 15, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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
IN RE THE ESTATE OF RICHARD JOHN LEVESQUE, DECEASED
FPR049583
Jun 05, 2019
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff argues that the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1633.1 et seq. ) gives electronic signatures the same legal effect as handwritten signatures. (Opp. 3:19-24.) However, the UETA applies only to a transaction between parties each of which has agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means. (Civ. Code, § 1633.5(b).)
DANIEL BEDINGFIELD, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JEREMY BRAUD, AN INDIVIDUAL
20STCV21243
Sep 21, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no evidence that the parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means and that Biagio’s counsel intended his email to constitute a signature in compliance with the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (See Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq.) In addition, there is no evidence showing whether or not Biagio’s acceptance of the Mediator’s Proposal was conditioned upon Biagio being allowed to draft the release.
RAMOS VS BIAGIO L.P.
CVRI2100506
Aug 07, 2023
Riverside County, CA
There is no evidence that the parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means and that Biagio’s counsel intended his email to constitute a signature in compliance with the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (See Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq.) In addition, there is no evidence showing whether or not Biagio’s acceptance of the Mediator’s Proposal was conditioned upon Biagio being allowed to draft the release.
RAMOS VS BIAGIO L.P.
CVRI2100506
Aug 06, 2023
Riverside County, CA
There is no evidence that the parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means and that Biagio’s counsel intended his email to constitute a signature in compliance with the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (See Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq.) In addition, there is no evidence showing whether or not Biagio’s acceptance of the Mediator’s Proposal was conditioned upon Biagio being allowed to draft the release.
RAMOS VS BIAGIO L.P.
CVRI2100506
Aug 05, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Neither the case law cited by Plaintiff, nor the references to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act CC ? 1633.1 et seq. support Plaintiff's position that the typed words, "accepted by telephone," constitute an electronic signature. Because Plaintiff has not pled facts that Defendant executed the agreement, Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient enough to bring a cause of action for breach of contract.
AMERICAN HOME REALTY NETWORK, INC. VS. DANIEL CASABONNE
CGC15544104
Sep 21, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
Pursuant to the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), Civil Code section 1633.1 et seq., an electronic signature will create a valid contract. However, under the UETA “[a]n electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.” Civil Code section 1633.9(a). Here Garcia asserts that the electronic signature was not her act, but that of Gerhardt.
MARIA ELENA GARCIA V. SILVER SPUR SECURED HOMES, LLC, ET AL.
PSC 1603784
Dec 02, 2016
Riverside County, CA
California has enacted statutes regarding electronic signatures in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), codified at Civil Code sections 1633.1 to 1633.17. Under section 1633.7(c), an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing and section 1633.7(d) authorizes an electronic signature to satisfy the requirement that the writing be signed. Under section 1633.9(a), an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ROSALIND D
BS173939
Oct 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff maintains that the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) controls. Defendant maintains the federal E-Sign Act controls. C. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) UETA can be found at Civil Code, §1633.1 et seq., and it generally recognizes the enforceability of electronic transactions and electronic signatures. However, UETA carves out certain transactions to which it does not apply. (See, Civil Code, §1633.3.)
JAMES T. JURAND VS BERBERIAN EUROPEAN MOTORS, LLC
STK-CV-UBT-2019-0011260
Apr 05, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
The procedure for authentication of an electronic signature is provided under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 et seq . (See Ruiz , 232 Cal.App.4th at 843.) Under the UETA, an electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.
DANIEL RAMOS VS CORNERSTONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV15061
Nov 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which California has adopted, a signature is not ignored simply because it is electronic. The key is that the electronic signature must be sufficiently formalized to assure that the party signing agreed to use the signature to formalize the agreement. ( J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974.) But that need not be overly formal. Here, there was an exchange of emails between plaintiff and defendant.
CORBY AND CORBY, AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION VS BARRY MAITEN
23SMCV02150
Jan 31, 2024
6/18/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court looked to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which defines electronic signature as 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. (UETA § 1633.2(h).)
BRIDGET BO-LANE VS QUEST DIAGNOSTIC, INC., A CORPORATION
20STCV16551
May 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) Plaintiff next argues that Defendants have failed to prove compliance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 et seq . Under the UETA, an electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.
RICHARD VEGA VS VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL.
21STCV35104
Jul 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Although Rule 2.257(a) applies to electronic signatures of court documents, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), codified in California at Civil Code sections 1633.1 to 1633.17, contains a similar definition of an electronic signature and provides that when a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law. Civ.
RICHARD COBBS VS MATTRESS FIRM INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV03271
Jun 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), Civil Code section1633.1 et seq., an electronic signature will create a valid contract. However, under the UETA “[a]n electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.” (Civ. Code §1633.9(a).) Here Garcia asserts that the electronic signature was not her act, but that of Gerhardt.
MARIA ELENA GARCIA V. SILVER SPUR SECURED HOMES, LLC, ET AL.
PSC 1603784
Oct 05, 2016
Riverside County, CA
California has enacted statutes regarding electronic signatures in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), which is codified at Civil Code sections 1633.1 to 1633.17. Under section 1633.7(c), an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing and section 1633.7(d) authorizes an electronic signature to satisfy the requirement that the writing be signed. Further, section 1633.7 states that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature.
RACHEL GILGAR VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, ET AL
EC067145
Jan 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, Plaintiff’s reliance on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) is misplaced. As made clear in J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, cited by Plaintiff, the UETA only applies if both parties have agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means. (Id. at 989; Civ. Code § 1633.5(b).) In fact, the Court of Appeal ultimately held in J.B.B.
RICK NORTHCUTT VS KERRY HECKMAN-BOKIDES, TRUSTEE OR SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE KERRY J. HECKMAN REVOCABLE TRUST
STK-CV-UBC-2017-0008246
Jul 02, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
HUDSON V. EXODUS RECOVERY, INC.
FCS050095
Jan 24, 2019
Solano County, CA
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), “‘an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature.’” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1061.) An “‘[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.” (Civil Code § 1633.2(h).)
ANDING VS 2020 COMPANIES
30-2015-00820071-CU-OE-CXC
Nov 03, 2017
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff further argues there is no evidence of compliance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) which he contends requires that, (1) Defendants must have provided the electronic agreement in a format that permitted Plaintiff to retain same; (2) Defendants must show the electronic signature attributed to Plaintiff was placed on the electronic document through an act of Plaintiff; and (3) Defendants must show the electronic signature attributed to Defendants was placed on the electronic document
EDGAR MONTOYA VS ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP CO. LTD, ET AL.
20STCV27245
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff further argues there is no evidence of compliance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) which he contends requires that, (1) Defendants must have provided the electronic agreement in a format that permitted Plaintiff to retain same; (2) Defendants must show the electronic signature attributed to Plaintiff was placed on the electronic document through an act of Plaintiff; and (3) Defendants must show the electronic signature attributed to Defendants was placed on the electronic document
EDGAR MONTOYA VS ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP CO. LTD, ET AL.
20STCV27245
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff further argues there is no evidence of compliance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) which he contends requires that, (1) Defendants must have provided the electronic agreement in a format that permitted Plaintiff to retain same; (2) Defendants must show the electronic signature attributed to Plaintiff was placed on the electronic document through an act of Plaintiff; and (3) Defendants must show the electronic signature attributed to Defendants was placed on the electronic document
EDGAR MONTOYA VS ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP CO. LTD, ET AL.
20STCV27245
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court of Appeal explained that under the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq.), [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 . [Citations.] ( Id. at 989 [italics in original].)
REYNA VENTURA VS LA LUNA LAVANDERIA, INC.
19STCV20201
Jul 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
California has enacted statutes regarding electronic signatures in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), codified at Civil Code sections 1633.1 to 1633.17. Under section 1633.7(c), an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing and section 1633.7(d) authorizes an electronic signature to satisfy the requirement that the writing be signed. Under section 1633.9(a), an electronic signature “is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.
ISABELLA ASLAN VS PACIFIC INCOME ADVISERS
BC688075
Oct 17, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiff argues that there was no agreement between the parties to conduct transactions electronically, citing the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Plaintiffs misapprehends the nature of this statute. The UETA merely provides that an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing (§ 1633.7, subd. (c)), and an electronic signature satisfies the requirement that the writing be signed (§ 1633.7, subd. (d)). (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v.
RAMIRO GARCIA VS PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV42115
May 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
PRISCILLA CAMPOS VS CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC
20STCV04897
Sep 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
RACHEL GILGAR VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, ET AL
EC067145
Aug 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Although UETA does not specifically reference any facts on the issue in its separate statement, it appears UETA concedes that Defendant Alfonso S. Preciado was an agent of UETA at the time of the alleged incident.
JOSE A HERRERA VS. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC
37-2017-00007771-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 22, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
For an electronic signature to satisfy the $664.6 requirement that the agreement be signed by the parties, there must be evidence that the parties agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means and that the signing party intended with his or her printed name to sign the electronic record, in accordance with California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. ( J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (20114) 232 Cal.App.4 th 974, 989.)
ANNIE AJAMIAN AKA ANNIE KOULLOUKIAN D/B/A NEW SANTA FE CLEANERS VS THRIFTY CLEANERS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, ET AL.
22NWCV00443
Dec 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
LOPEZ V. EXEL, INC.
19CECG03343
May 29, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Third, for an electronic signature to satisfy the requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 that the agreement be signed by the parties, there must be evidence that the parties agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means and that the signing party intended with his or her printed name to sign the electronic record, in accordance with California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (See J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 989-991.)
MAC ANDERSON VS JONATHAN BOLERJACK
19STCV30745
Feb 22, 2024
11/28/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act The Court need not and does not reach arguments regarding UETA. IV. Conclusion The Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.
RUTHANN LEE BROOKS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JASON J. EMER, MD P.C., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV20105
Dec 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) indicates that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as handwritten signature. The Defendants initial burden to compel arbitration was satisfied. Under Rule of Court Rule 3.1330, a copy of the agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference. Here, Defendant has done so.
RENE TONELLI VS ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMMERCIAL STRATEGY LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV36252
Jun 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) indicates that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as handwritten signature. Plaintiff does not challenge her signatures authenticity. Thus, Moving Defendants satisfied their initial burden to compel arbitration. 1.
STEPHANIE ABUNDIS VS COMPREHENSIVE SURGICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV17834
Nov 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), enacted at Civil Code sections 1633.1 to 1633.17, identifies the requirements for an electronic signature. Under Civil Code section 1633.7: (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.
AKOP SOGOMONYAN, ET AL. VS HAMAZASP KIRAMIJYAN, ET AL.
19BBCV00305
Jul 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Two (2) Motions to Compel Verified Responses The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civ. Code § 1633.7.) Enforcement of the electronic signature occurs when two requirements are met: (1) preponderance of proof that the signing party agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means; and (2) the electronic signature was the act of the signing party. (Civ. Code §§ 1633.5; 1633.9.)
PEREZ VS PEREZ
CVRI2204802
Dec 07, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The trial court found that Fair s printed name at the end of his e-mail where he had agreed to settlement terms set forth in an e-mail from plaintiffs counsel was an electronic signature within the meaning of Californias Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ( Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq. ) (UETA) & The Court of Appeal conclude[d] that the evidence in the record is as a matter of law insufficient to establish that Fair signed electronically a settlement agreement.
CMG WORLDWIDE, INC. VS DREAMS FULFILLED, LLC
19STLC00037
Jul 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
In Plaintiff’s memorandum in support at pp. 9-10, counsel merely asserts in conclusory fashion that the written contracts were electronically signed and that those electronic signatures were valid under the UETA or Uniform Electronic Transaction Act at CC 1633.1 - 1633.17. However, this contention. First, the arguments of counsel do not constitute evidence.
LOANME, INC. VS. SHAWN MOTORS
30-2015-00802434-CU-BC-CJC
Nov 04, 2016
Orange County, CA
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 to 1633.17) provides that 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.” (Civ. Code § 1633.9.)
YESHA CRATHIN VS CALIFORNIA POST-ACUTE CARE LLC ET AL
BC710992
Nov 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), 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).)
TONY GAUGHAN, ET AL. VS PACKETFABRIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV24867
Mar 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the first point, electronic signatures satisfy any legal requirement for a signature under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code §§ 1633- 1633.17 [UETA]). Under § 1633.2(h), an electronic 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.
M. S. VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL.
22STCV16768
Sep 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Cir. 2005) 394 F.3d 1355, 1362 [e-mail was written prior to the enactment of California's UETA but court opined that inclusion of individual's name on e-mail would be valid signature under California's UETA].), and Forcelli v. Gelco Corp. (2013) [972 N.Y.S.2d 570], 109 A.D.3d 244.
WALCZAK VS PRINCE OF PEACE ABBEY
37-2022-00013705-CU-OE-CTL
Sep 29, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Auto Grp., 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.
HILLIARD VS. MCCORMACK
30-2017-00944017-CU-CL-CJC
Jan 14, 2019
Orange County, CA
Dutton argues that, because this section is exempted from the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (see Civ. Code § 1633.3(c)), and therefore an electronic agreement does not count as a "writing" for purposes of Section 2981.9. Plaintiff also argues that Tesla assigned its interest in this contract to Wells Fargo (Decl. of R. Kim Ex. 2 at p.7) and that only Wells Fargo, not Tesla, may compel arbitration under its terms.
DUTTON VS TESLA INC.
HG21094568
Jul 19, 2021
Alameda County, CA
“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.
MARCO ORTIZ VS RELATED ET AL
BC718443
Mar 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) indicates that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as handwritten signature. Plaintiff does not challenge his signatures authenticity. [2] Thus, Moving Defendant satisfied their initial burden to compel arbitration. 1. The Agreement Covers the Dispute at Issue: Applicability of Agreement to Subject Dispute Moving Defendant contends the Agreement covers Plaintiffs claims.
MARK HUARD VS CVS PHARMACY, INC., ET AL.
23STCV15929
Dec 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Under Civil Code section 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq.; Stats. 1999, ch. 428, § 1, pp. 28092816), 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.] ). (Id . at 842-843.)
TIANA BROWN VS ERMC AVIATION, LLC, ET AL.
22TRCV01630
Aug 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs Electronic Signature The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature and the legal effect of an electronic signature may not be denied simply because of its electronic form. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1633.1, 1633.7.)
RONALD ROSAS VS BEACHBODY LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV25018
Feb 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
There is Insufficient Evidence That Plaintiff Agreed to Arbitrate His Employment Disputes The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civ. Code § 1633.7.) Enforcement of the electronic signature occurs when two requirements are met: (1) preponderance of proof that the signing party agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means; and (2) the electronic signature was the act of the signing party. (Civ.
HERNANDEZ VS SOCIAL SCIENCE SERVICES, INC.
CVRI2303875
Nov 29, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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 . . . .”
GAVIN GONZALES VS CARSON LAPPETITO, ET AL.
19STCV02548
Apr 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
JOSE LUIS VENEGAS, ET AL. VS THE UNITED SOLAR, INC., DBA UNITED CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.
19STCV05917
Nov 21, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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).)
MARCO MORENO VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL
BC714724
Dec 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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).
GOLDMAN VS ORINDA ACADEMY, NOR
MSC17-02434
Jul 25, 2019
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
In Ruiz , the Court of Appeal held that the defendant moving for an order compelling arbitration “did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the electronic signature on the 2011 agreement was the act of [the plaintiff].” ( Id. ) “Under Civil Code section 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq.; Stats. 1999, ch. 428, § 1, pp. 2809–2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature (Civ.
JAN ROBERTSON VS GUITAR CENTER, ET AL.
19STCV41746
Jan 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Orlee Bakhshizandeh RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Crown Castle Fiber LLC NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED : An order enforcing the settlement agreement between Plaintiff Orlee Bakhshizandeh and Defendant Crown Castle Fiber LLC pursuant to CCP 664.6, Civil Code 1633.1, et seq., and CRC 2.257(a). RULING : The motion is denied. FACTUAL SUMMARY & RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises out of a trip and fall incident.
ORLEE BAKHSHIZADEH VS CROWN CASTLE USA, INC., ET AL.
21STCV04128
Oct 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants’ evidence does not support an enforceable contract under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act, Civil Code §§1633.1 et seq. See Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836. A binding contract requires consent of the parties. See Civ. Code §1550 & §1565; Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1173. Defendants have failed to prove this essential element.
GODREY RUFFIN VS U S TELEPACIFIC CORP ET AL
BC621220
Dec 20, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
When plaintiff was hired she electronically signed new-hire documents, including an arbitration agreement, which satisfied the requirements of Civil Code §§1633.1, et seq. Although plaintiff argues there was no agreement to arbitrate and she just signed an electronic pad with no idea what she was signing, defendant provides evidence that it does not use signature pads. Instead, employees have to click-sign, and a signature is affixed to each document.
GRANDE VS. KIMCO STAFFING, INC.
30-2016-00840449-CU-OE-CJC
Aug 18, 2016
Orange County, CA
The Court of Appeal in Ruiz noted that [u]nder Civil Code section 1633.7 , enacted&as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act&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.] ). ( Ruiz v. Moss Bros.
RUBY GARCIA VS PACIFIC SUNWEAR STORES LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22STCV36700
Jun 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
But for that to be the case, there must be evidence that the parties agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means and that the signing party intended with his or her printed name to sign the electronic record, in accordance with California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 989.) There is no evidence of any such agreement to have the parties sign by electronic means.
ANM SALES, INC VS. NIKKI BOWERY
C22-01341
Mar 29, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
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).)
HANCOCK, DIONNA VS NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC
16K15176
Sep 25, 2017
Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs further argue that under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), Defendants motion seeks to compel arbitration based on purported electronic signatures, but Defendant does not provide evidence to establish that Plaintiffs ever agreed to execute the Agreement by electronic means. (Opp., 5-6.)
ISADOR MARTIN, ET AL. VS NUSRET BH LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV30655
Feb 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) indicates that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as handwritten signature. If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. ( Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158,165 ( Gamboa) .)
KEVIN HICKEY VS TRANSFORM SEARS HOME SERVICES LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23STCV23723
Feb 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Regarding the standard for evaluating electronic signatures, the Court noted the following: 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).)
HANCOCK, DIONNA VS NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC
16K15176
Jan 08, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
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 . . . .”
MUHAMMAD FAISAL ADNAN VS PARSONS CORPORATION, ET AL.
18STCV09108
Apr 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) indicates that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as handwritten signature. Thus, Moving Defendants satisfied their initial burden to compel arbitration. If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. ( Gamboa v.
VICKY GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MACY'S, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV15885
Nov 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.7. Enforcement of the electronic signature occurs when two requirements are met: (1) preponderance of proof that the signing party agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means; and (2) the electronic signature was the act of the signing party. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.5; 1633.9.
HARO VS WEBER DISTRIBUTION, LLC
CVRI2205037
May 04, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civ. Code § 1633.7.) Enforcement of the electronic signature occurs when two requirements are met: (1) preponderance of proof that the signing party agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means; and (2) the electronic signature was the act of the signing party. (Civ. Code §§ 1633.5; 1633.9.)
MARQUEZ VS SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES INC.
CVRI2205210
Jul 11, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Applying the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq.), the Fourth Appellate District held that the employer had not borne its burden of proving that the electronic signature was ‘the act of’ the employee. [Citation.]” (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 756–757 citing Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842-845.) “Neither case [Bannister or Ruiz] has any bearing on the situation in the present case.
COLBY WILLIAMS VS. FRATELLI BERETTA USA, INC./CLASS ACTION
22CECG04018
Mar 06, 2024
Fresno County, CA
Code, §1633.1 et seq.), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature. (Id. at 843.) “[W]hether defendants established the existence of an arbitration turns almost exclusively on whether…declaration sufficiently authenticates…electronic signature….” (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at 1061.)
SERRATO VS AKASH MANAGEMENT LLC
CVRI2102602
Oct 14, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Furthermore, the authority cited by Defendant do not support Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff must plead compliance with the UETA in order to state a breach of contract claim involving an agreement with an electronic signature. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. Second Cause of Action for Common Counts “In California, it has long been settled the allegation of claims using common counts is good against special or general demurrers.”
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS LYNCH, STUART M
17K06335
Sep 26, 2017
Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
(b); UETA Section 5, Comment 2.) In this situation then, intent can be established by the fact that the parties conducted the transaction in question electronically. Overruled. Furthermore, Defendants’ “supporting declaration of Baidhar Das” (filed: 6/12/17) cannot be considered because it is evidence extrinsic to the pleadings and to that which is judicially noticeable. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)
BRAD HARDIE V. RABISANKAR SAHU
17CECG01586
Jul 31, 2017
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Real Property
other
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) indicates that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as handwritten signature. The Defendants initial burden to compel arbitration was satisfied. Under Rule of Court Rule 3.1330, a copy of the agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference. Here, Defendant has done so.
SANDRA POLANCO VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
22STCV38892
May 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Garcia, the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civ. Code § 1633.7.) Enforcement of the Page 7 of 9 electronic signature occurs when two requirements are met: (1) Preponderance of proof that the signing party agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means; and (2) The electronic signature was the act of the signing party. (Civ. Code §§ 1633.5; 1633.9.)
GARCIA VS MS FOODS LLC
RIC2003305
Jan 21, 2021
Riverside County, CA
This assertion is no longer accurate in light of the enactment of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act in 2020. Under Civil Code section 1633.7: (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.
350 LORAINE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. VS AVANES HOVSEPIAN
21GDCV00909
Dec 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
MARCO MORENO VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL
BC714724
Jan 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civil Code (CC) § 1633.7.) Enforcement of the electronic signature occurs when two requirements are met: (1) preponderance of proof that the signing party agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means; and (2) the electronic signature was the act of the signing party. (CC §§ 1633.5; 1633.9.)
SCOTT VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
CVRI2302055
Aug 23, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Under Civil Code section 1633.7, enacted in 1999 as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 1633.1 et seq.; Stats. 1999, ch. 428, § 1, pp. 28092816), 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.] ). (Id . at 842-843.)
ARLENE PARRA, ET AL. VS MARKSMAN SECURITY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23TRCV01864
Sep 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature and the legal effect of an electronic signature may not be denied simply because of its electronic form. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1633.1, 1633.7.) Civil Code section 1633.9 addresses how a proponent of an electronic signature may authenticate the signaturethat is, show the signature is, in fact, the signature of the person the proponent claims it is.
CHRISTINA GRACE BONILLAS VS CAREMORE HEALTH PLAN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV02960
Jun 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Under UETA (§ 1633.1 et seq.), “an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature.” (Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 843; Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1061; see § 1633.7, subd. (a) [“A ... signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.”].)
DAENA SEGURA MORAN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS FUSION SIGN & DESIGN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0007441
Aug 04, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
The court finds the following guidance from the California Court of Appeal to be instructive: Under UETA (§ 1633.1 et seq.), which became effective January 1, 2000, an electronic record satisfies the requirement that a record be in writing ( § 1633.7, subd. (c) ), and an electronic signature satisfies the requirement that the writing be signed ( § 1633.7, subd. (d) ). An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.
JULIE PARK, ET AL. VS NMSI, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV42599
Jul 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
A printed name or some other symbol might, under specific circumstances, be a signature under Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. J.B.B. Inv. Partners, Ltd. v. Fair, 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 988 (2014). (C-Loans says this case was “decertified” by the California Supreme Court and cannot be cited or relied on. C-Loans provides no citation in support of this assertion.
MORTGAGE COMPANY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL VS BLACKBURNE & SONS/C-LOANS.COM ET AL
15CV03950
Jan 15, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
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).)
JORDAN HORTON VS MACY'S INC ET AL
BC695069
Jun 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The supplemental brief filed by defendants points out that under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature can satisfy a signature requirement. Under Civil Code section 1633.7: (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.
AKOP SOGOMONYAN, ET AL. VS HAMAZASP KIRAMIJYAN, ET AL.
19BBCV00305
Sep 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JUDSON ABTS, ET AL. VS RAYMOND LEE
19STCV45834
Oct 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
The Court of Appeal in Ruiz noted that [u]nder Civil Code section 1633.7 , enacted&as part of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act&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.] ). ( Ruiz v. Moss Bros.
RUBY GARCIA VS PACIFIC SUNWEAR STORES LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22STCV36700
May 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq., an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature. (Espejo v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1061.) Section 1633.9 states: “(a) An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.
PACHECO VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
CVRI2302340
Jul 21, 2023
Riverside County, CA
After arguing that the release constitutes the written settlement agreement (Motion p .3), Gharebeigi argues that the email correspondence by Defendants counsel making the offer and Plaintiffs acceptance of the offer is exactly the type of agreement 664.6 contemplates and 1633.1 et seq. allows for electronically. (Motion p. 5.) Contrary to Gharebeigi's assertion, t he email correspondence, Exhibit B, does not contain an offer or acceptance.
JILL JOHNSON-BOKELBERG, ET AL. VS OFELIA HAGNAZAR GHARABEIGI, ET AL.
20STCV27638
Sep 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
LAUREN ELIZABETH COLEMAN VS BIRD RIDES, INC.
22SMCV02048
Oct 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
MONICA SMITH VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV08903
Nov 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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. [¶] Still, any writing must be authenticated before the writing, or secondary evidence of itscontent, may be received in evidence.
CYNTHIA YBARRA VS. HAT WORLD SERVICES CO., INC.
21CECG00012
Oct 12, 2022
Fresno County, CA
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).)
STEVEN GORDON VS GERALD THOMAS INC ET AL
BC718609
Jan 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Regarding the standard for evaluating electronic signatures, the Court noted the following: 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).)
HANCOCK, DIONNA VS NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC
16K15176
Feb 14, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
AHMED ISSA VS TESLA, INC.
20STCV05113
Jul 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
AHMED ISSA VS TESLA, INC.
20STCV05113
Jul 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (CUETA) provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civ. Code § 1633.7.)
HANCOCK VS BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
CVRI2202050
Feb 16, 2023
day s
Riverside County, CA
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).)
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
230STCV17436
Oct 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The evidence is sufficient to establish that the electronic signature on the Agreement is attributable to Plaintiff under the UETA. (Civ. Code § 1633.9.) Accordingly, the Court finds that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and covers Plaintiffs claims in this action.
ALEJANDRO CASTANEDA VS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
22STCV20108
Nov 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
App. 4th 974, where, after the court specifically noted that a printed name or symbol can constitute a signature under UETA and "might even satisfy the more rigorous requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6," the court confirmed that under section 1633.2, an " [electronic 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." ( J.B.B., supra, 232
BMBG INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS HF-11 NOHO LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABLITY COMANY, ET AL.
20BBCV00421
Feb 09, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Both Hough and Raynor attach a document summarizing how TalentReef complies with the requirements of the statutes regulating electronic signatures, including the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, California's version of which include Civil Code section 1633.9, which states TalentReef has a "complete audit trail, tracking the user's actions and confirming their identity." (Raynor Decl. Exh. A; Hough Decl. Exh. B.) The audit trail is not part of the evidence before the Court.
MARK HIGGINS VS. PACPIZZA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
C23-01431
Oct 19, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.