Agreement Formalized by Electronic Means (UETA) in California

What Is an Agreement Formalized by Electronic Means (UETA)?

"'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

  1. the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or
  2. the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.”

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.)

Rulings for Agreement Formalized by Electronic Means (UETA) in California

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.)

  • Name

    AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS LYNCH, STUART M

  • Case No.

    17K06335

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    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

  • Name

    IN RE THE ESTATE OF RICHARD JOHN LEVESQUE, DECEASED

  • Case No.

    FPR049583

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    DANIEL BEDINGFIELD, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JEREMY BRAUD, AN INDIVIDUAL

  • Case No.

    20STCV21243

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RAMOS VS BIAGIO L.P.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2100506

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RAMOS VS BIAGIO L.P.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2100506

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RAMOS VS BIAGIO L.P.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2100506

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AMERICAN HOME REALTY NETWORK, INC. VS. DANIEL CASABONNE

  • Case No.

    CGC15544104

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2015

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.

  • Name

    MARIA ELENA GARCIA V. SILVER SPUR SECURED HOMES, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    PSC 1603784

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2016

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.

  • Name

    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ROSALIND D

  • Case No.

    BS173939

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    JAMES T. JURAND VS BERBERIAN EUROPEAN MOTORS, LLC

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UBT-2019-0011260

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2021

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.

  • Name

    DANIEL RAMOS VS CORNERSTONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV15061

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2023

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.

  • Name

    CORBY AND CORBY, AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION VS BARRY MAITEN

  • Case No.

    23SMCV02150

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2024

  • Judge

    6/18/2022

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    BRIDGET BO-LANE VS QUEST DIAGNOSTIC, INC., A CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV16551

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RICHARD VEGA VS VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV35104

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2022

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.

  • Name

    RICHARD COBBS VS MATTRESS FIRM INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV03271

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2023

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.

  • Name

    MARIA ELENA GARCIA V. SILVER SPUR SECURED HOMES, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    PSC 1603784

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2016

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.

  • Name

    RACHEL GILGAR VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC067145

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2018

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RICK NORTHCUTT VS KERRY HECKMAN-BOKIDES, TRUSTEE OR SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE KERRY J. HECKMAN REVOCABLE TRUST

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UBC-2017-0008246

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2018

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.

  • Name

    HUDSON V. EXODUS RECOVERY, INC.

  • Case No.

    FCS050095

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    ANDING VS 2020 COMPANIES

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00820071-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2017

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

  • Name

    EDGAR MONTOYA VS ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP CO. LTD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27245

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2021

  • County

    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

  • Name

    EDGAR MONTOYA VS ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP CO. LTD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27245

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2021

  • County

    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

  • Name

    EDGAR MONTOYA VS ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP CO. LTD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27245

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2021

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    REYNA VENTURA VS LA LUNA LAVANDERIA, INC.

  • Case No.

    19STCV20201

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ISABELLA ASLAN VS PACIFIC INCOME ADVISERS

  • Case No.

    BC688075

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2018

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.

  • Name

    RAMIRO GARCIA VS PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV42115

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    PRISCILLA CAMPOS VS CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV04897

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

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.

  • Name

    RACHEL GILGAR VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC067145

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JOSE A HERRERA VS. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00007771-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    ANNIE AJAMIAN AKA ANNIE KOULLOUKIAN D/B/A NEW SANTA FE CLEANERS VS THRIFTY CLEANERS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22NWCV00443

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    LOPEZ V. EXEL, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CECG03343

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    MAC ANDERSON VS JONATHAN BOLERJACK

  • Case No.

    19STCV30745

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2024

  • Judge

    11/28/2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RUTHANN LEE BROOKS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JASON J. EMER, MD P.C., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV20105

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RENE TONELLI VS ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMMERCIAL STRATEGY LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36252

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    STEPHANIE ABUNDIS VS COMPREHENSIVE SURGICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV17834

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AKOP SOGOMONYAN, ET AL. VS HAMAZASP KIRAMIJYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19BBCV00305

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PEREZ VS PEREZ

  • Case No.

    CVRI2204802

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CMG WORLDWIDE, INC. VS DREAMS FULFILLED, LLC

  • Case No.

    19STLC00037

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LOANME, INC. VS. SHAWN MOTORS

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00802434-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

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.)

  • Name

    YESHA CRATHIN VS CALIFORNIA POST-ACUTE CARE LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC710992

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

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).)

  • Name

    TONY GAUGHAN, ET AL. VS PACKETFABRIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV24867

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2023

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.

  • Name

    M. S. VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV16768

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    WALCZAK VS PRINCE OF PEACE ABBEY

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00013705-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HILLIARD VS. MCCORMACK

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00944017-CU-CL-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DUTTON VS TESLA INC.

  • Case No.

    HG21094568

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2021

“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.

  • Name

    MARCO ORTIZ VS RELATED ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC718443

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MARK HUARD VS CVS PHARMACY, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV15929

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    TIANA BROWN VS ERMC AVIATION, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22TRCV01630

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    RONALD ROSAS VS BEACHBODY LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV25018

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HERNANDEZ VS SOCIAL SCIENCE SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2303875

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2023

  • County

    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 . . . .”

  • Name

    GAVIN GONZALES VS CARSON LAPPETITO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV02548

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV05917

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    MARCO MORENO VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC714724

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

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).

  • Name

    GOLDMAN VS ORINDA ACADEMY, NOR

  • Case No.

    MSC17-02434

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JAN ROBERTSON VS GUITAR CENTER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV41746

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    ORLEE BAKHSHIZADEH VS CROWN CASTLE USA, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV04128

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GODREY RUFFIN VS U S TELEPACIFIC CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC621220

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2016

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.

  • Name

    GRANDE VS. KIMCO STAFFING, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00840449-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2016

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.

  • Name

    RUBY GARCIA VS PACIFIC SUNWEAR STORES LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22STCV36700

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ANM SALES, INC VS. NIKKI BOWERY

  • Case No.

    C22-01341

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    HANCOCK, DIONNA VS NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC

  • Case No.

    16K15176

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ISADOR MARTIN, ET AL. VS NUSRET BH LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV30655

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2023

  • County

    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) .)

  • Name

    KEVIN HICKEY VS TRANSFORM SEARS HOME SERVICES LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV23723

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2024

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    HANCOCK, DIONNA VS NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC

  • Case No.

    16K15176

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    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 . . . .”

  • Name

    MUHAMMAD FAISAL ADNAN VS PARSONS CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV09108

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

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.

  • Name

    VICKY GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MACY'S, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV15885

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HARO VS WEBER DISTRIBUTION, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2205037

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    MARQUEZ VS SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2205210

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COLBY WILLIAMS VS. FRATELLI BERETTA USA, INC./CLASS ACTION

  • Case No.

    22CECG04018

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2024

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    SERRATO VS AKASH MANAGEMENT LLC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2102602

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2021

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.”

  • Name

    AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS LYNCH, STUART M

  • Case No.

    17K06335

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    BRAD HARDIE V. RABISANKAR SAHU

  • Case No.

    17CECG01586

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2017

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    SANDRA POLANCO VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV38892

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    GARCIA VS MS FOODS LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC2003305

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

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.

  • Name

    350 LORAINE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. VS AVANES HOVSEPIAN

  • Case No.

    21GDCV00909

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2022

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    MARCO MORENO VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC714724

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    SCOTT VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2302055

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ARLENE PARRA, ET AL. VS MARKSMAN SECURITY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23TRCV01864

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA GRACE BONILLAS VS CAREMORE HEALTH PLAN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV02960

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Under UETA1633.1 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.”].)

  • Name

    DAENA SEGURA MORAN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS FUSION SIGN & DESIGN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UOE-2020-0007441

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2021

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

The court finds the following guidance from the California Court of Appeal to be instructive: Under UETA1633.1 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.

  • Name

    JULIE PARK, ET AL. VS NMSI, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV42599

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MORTGAGE COMPANY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL VS BLACKBURNE & SONS/C-LOANS.COM ET AL

  • Case No.

    15CV03950

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2016

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).)

  • Name

    JORDAN HORTON VS MACY'S INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC695069

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2018

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.

  • Name

    AKOP SOGOMONYAN, ET AL. VS HAMAZASP KIRAMIJYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19BBCV00305

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUDSON ABTS, ET AL. VS RAYMOND LEE

  • Case No.

    19STCV45834

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

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.

  • Name

    RUBY GARCIA VS PACIFIC SUNWEAR STORES LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22STCV36700

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PACHECO VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2302340

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JILL JOHNSON-BOKELBERG, ET AL. VS OFELIA HAGNAZAR GHARABEIGI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27638

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2023

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    LAUREN ELIZABETH COLEMAN VS BIRD RIDES, INC.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV02048

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2023

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV08903

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CYNTHIA YBARRA VS. HAT WORLD SERVICES CO., INC.

  • Case No.

    21CECG00012

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2022

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    STEVEN GORDON VS GERALD THOMAS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC718609

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    HANCOCK, DIONNA VS NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC

  • Case No.

    16K15176

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AHMED ISSA VS TESLA, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV05113

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

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.

  • Name

    AHMED ISSA VS TESLA, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV05113

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

The California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (CUETA) provides that an electronic signature is as valid as a handwritten signature. (See Civ. Code § 1633.7.)

  • Name

    HANCOCK VS BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202050

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2023

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    230STCV17436

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ALEJANDRO CASTANEDA VS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV20108

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2022

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

  • Name

    BMBG INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS HF-11 NOHO LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABLITY COMANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20BBCV00421

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARK HIGGINS VS. PACPIZZA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    C23-01431

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope