Preview
8A"
8. Alejandro v. Santa Eastvale, Inc. BERNARDW?) 0:812:030
CIVSB2202254 NOV 0 1 2022.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Tentative Rulin : .
‘64 “mks
Denied. I
uw
The issues motion are whether an agreement to arbitrate exists and,
for this if so,
whether its terms are unconscionable.
As explained below, Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff signed a
document written in Spanish as part of her onboarding process forrflempyloyment. But
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the purported Englishyytrans'lafl'fibn of the
document, which would otherwise demonstrate an agreement t'Q>arbit‘rate, is an_
accurate translation of the Spanish language document. ~_Therefbr_e, no a‘greemént to
” “
‘
5
arbitrate has been shown to exist. I g
Er
r
As assuming arguendo that the purportedEnglish
for unconscionability,
translation is an accuratethe’document plaintiff signed, plaintiff fails to
translation of
demonstrate that it is unconscionable. But the court need not rule on unconscionability
because no agreement to arbitrate is shown to exist.
Whether there is an Agreement Between the Pan‘ies
In Condee v. Lonngod ManagementCorp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219,
‘
the Court wrote: r
r
i
;,
For pUrposes dfa petition'foy-compel arbitration, it is not necessary
to follow thenormal procedures of document authentication. "The
Court shallyorder 'the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the
‘fj‘controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the
Controvérsy exists. .
."
([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 1281 .2) The statute
.
dOésflynot require the petitioner to introduce the agreement into
, evidence. A plain reading of the statute indicates that as a
'
x
preliminarymatter the court is only required to make a finding of
the agree'ment's existence, not an evidentiary determination of
its
vélidity.
Condee relied on former California Rules of Court, rule 371 (now rule 3.1330) in
holding that authentication is not required. (Id. at p. 218.) The Condee defendants
therefore satisfied their initial burden to establish the existence of an arbitration
agreement—which was not challenged. (Ibid.)
Defendants “may meet their initial burden to show an agreement to arbitrate by
attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party's
signature... in compliance with the requirements of section 1281 .2 and California Rules
Page 12 of 20
CV526110122
of Court, rule 3.1330.” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group
(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060, italics in original.)
“Properly understood, Condee holds that a petitioner is not required to
authenticate an opposing party's signature on an arbitration agreement as a preliminary
matter In moving event the authenticity of the signature is not
for arbitration or in the
"
challenged. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 846,
emphasis in original. ) However, the Court'In Ruiz further held where the plaintiff did not
recall singing the agreement, the defendant then had the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence the authenticity of the plaintiff’s electronic signature.
(lbid.)
‘
burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great [Citations]
“‘[T]he
The party seeking authentication may carry its burden‘ in any manner ’including by
presenting evidence of the contents of the contract In question and the Circumstances
surrounding the contract’s execution. [Citation. ]” (Fabian v. Renovate America, supra,
42 Cal. App. 5th 1062, 1067- 68, quoting Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal. App 4th at p. 844. )
Therefore, to establish the authenticity of an electronic signature, the party seeking
authentication must provide evidence
““‘of
such a character and weight as to leave no
room fora judicial determination. (Fabian v. Renovate America, supra 42
Cal. App. 5th at p. 1068, quoting Sonic Mfg Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc.
'
(2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 456, 466.)
w _
In Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal. App. 4th at p. 836 the Court held that an arbitration
agreement was unenforceable based on the lack of evidence the employee had
electronically signed it. Showing an electronic signature in the employee’ s name with a
date and time stamp was insufficient to support a finding the electronic signature was, in
fact, the act of the employee Where the employee could not recall having signed the
document electronically The employer’s business managers unsupported assertion
that the employee signed it was not sufficient proof. Specifically, the Ruiz Court found
the declarations “never explained how [the plaintiff‘s] printed electronic signature, or the
date and time printed next to the signature, came to be placed on the [ ] agreement" or
how the defendant ?fascertained that the electronic signature. .was ‘the act of’” the
plaintiff. (Id at p. 839, quoting Civ. Code, § 1633. 9, subd. (a). ) The Court noted that
authentication “was not a difficult evidentiary burden to meet, but it was not met
here’
(Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal .A.pp 4th at p. 844. )
contrast to Ruiz, the Court'm Espejo found the defendant employer had
In
sufficiently authenticated an employee’ s electronic signature when the defendant
“detailed [its] security precautions regarding transmission and use of an applicant’ s
unique user name and password, as well as the steps an applicant would have to take ”
to place his or her the signature line of the employment agreement.
name on (Id.
at p. 1062. ) The declarant averred: “‘Given this process for signing documents and
protecting the privacy of the information with unique and private user names and
passwords the electronic signature was made by [the plaintiffju .at the date, time, and
"
IP address listed on the documents. (Id. at p. 1054.)
Page 13 of 20
CV526110122
Preview
8A" 8. Alejandro v. Santa Eastvale, Inc. BERNARDW?) 0:812:030 CIVSB2202254 NOV 0 1 2022. Motion to Compel Arbitration Tentative Rulin : . ‘64 “mks Denied. I uw The issues motion are whether an agreement to arbitrate exists and, for this if so, whether its terms are unconscionable. As explained below, Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff signed a document written in Spanish as part of her onboarding process forrflempyloyment. But Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the purported Englishyytrans'lafl'fibn of the document, which would otherwise demonstrate an agreement t'Q>arbit‘rate, is an_ accurate translation of the Spanish language document. ~_Therefbr_e, no a‘greemént to ” “ ‘ 5 arbitrate has been shown to exist. I g Er r As assuming arguendo that the purportedEnglish for unconscionability, translation is an accuratethe’document plaintiff signed, plaintiff fails to translation of demonstrate that it is unconscionable. But the court need not rule on unconscionability because no agreement to arbitrate is shown to exist. Whether there is an Agreement Between the Pan‘ies In Condee v. Lonngod ManagementCorp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219, ‘ the Court wrote: r r i ;, For pUrposes dfa petition'foy-compel arbitration, it is not necessary to follow thenormal procedures of document authentication. "The Court shallyorder 'the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the ‘fj‘controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the Controvérsy exists. . ." ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 1281 .2) The statute . dOésflynot require the petitioner to introduce the agreement into , evidence. A plain reading of the statute indicates that as a ' x preliminarymatter the court is only required to make a finding of the agree'ment's existence, not an evidentiary determination of its vélidity. Condee relied on former California Rules of Court, rule 371 (now rule 3.1330) in holding that authentication is not required. (Id. at p. 218.) The Condee defendants therefore satisfied their initial burden to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement—which was not challenged. (Ibid.) Defendants “may meet their initial burden to show an agreement to arbitrate by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party's signature... in compliance with the requirements of section 1281 .2 and California Rules Page 12 of 20 CV526110122 of Court, rule 3.1330.” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060, italics in original.) “Properly understood, Condee holds that a petitioner is not required to authenticate an opposing party's signature on an arbitration agreement as a preliminary matter In moving event the authenticity of the signature is not for arbitration or in the " challenged. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 846, emphasis in original. ) However, the Court'In Ruiz further held where the plaintiff did not recall singing the agreement, the defendant then had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the authenticity of the plaintiff’s electronic signature. (lbid.) ‘ burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great [Citations] “‘[T]he The party seeking authentication may carry its burden‘ in any manner ’including by presenting evidence of the contents of the contract In question and the Circumstances surrounding the contract’s execution. [Citation. ]” (Fabian v. Renovate America, supra, 42 Cal. App. 5th 1062, 1067- 68, quoting Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal. App 4th at p. 844. ) Therefore, to establish the authenticity of an electronic signature, the party seeking authentication must provide evidence ““‘of such a character and weight as to leave no room fora judicial determination. (Fabian v. Renovate America, supra 42 Cal. App. 5th at p. 1068, quoting Sonic Mfg Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. ' (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 456, 466.) w _ In Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal. App. 4th at p. 836 the Court held that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable based on the lack of evidence the employee had electronically signed it. Showing an electronic signature in the employee’ s name with a date and time stamp was insufficient to support a finding the electronic signature was, in fact, the act of the employee Where the employee could not recall having signed the document electronically The employer’s business managers unsupported assertion that the employee signed it was not sufficient proof. Specifically, the Ruiz Court found the declarations “never explained how [the plaintiff‘s] printed electronic signature, or the date and time printed next to the signature, came to be placed on the [ ] agreement" or how the defendant ?fascertained that the electronic signature. .was ‘the act of’” the plaintiff. (Id at p. 839, quoting Civ. Code, § 1633. 9, subd. (a). ) The Court noted that authentication “was not a difficult evidentiary burden to meet, but it was not met here’ (Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal .A.pp 4th at p. 844. ) contrast to Ruiz, the Court'm Espejo found the defendant employer had In sufficiently authenticated an employee’ s electronic signature when the defendant “detailed [its] security precautions regarding transmission and use of an applicant’ s unique user name and password, as well as the steps an applicant would have to take ” to place his or her the signature line of the employment agreement. name on (Id. at p. 1062. ) The declarant averred: “‘Given this process for signing documents and protecting the privacy of the information with unique and private user names and passwords the electronic signature was made by [the plaintiffju .at the date, time, and " IP address listed on the documents. (Id. at p. 1054.) Page 13 of 20 CV526110122