Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Kern
Bakersfield Department 11
Date: 05/04/2021 BCV-19-103444
MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC
Courtroom Staff
Honorable: David R. Lampe Clerk: Veronica D. Lancaster
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RULING ON DEFENDANT EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC DBA SELECT STAFFING'S PETITION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STAYING ENTIRE ACTION; HERETOFORE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 11, 2021
RULING:
The Court grants Defendant Employbridge, LLC dba Select Staffing’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Staying
Entire Action. (Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (4th Cir. 2015) 787 F.3d 707, 715-716.) Plaintiff does not dispute the
applicability of the agreement to her claims, instead challenging the validity of the agreement on grounds the
signature presented is not her own and she never electronically signed an arbitration agreement. On July 9, 2020,
the Court denied Defendant’s petition to compel arbitration, finding Defendant failure to adequately authenticate
Plaintiff’s signature on the electronically signed arbitration agreement. The Court granted Defendant leave to
resubmit the matter upon securing additional evidence supporting the authenticity of the signature.
“Civil Code section 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.)” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047,
1061, citing Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843.) “The effect of an electronic
record or electronic signature attributed to a person under subdivision (a) is determined from the context and
surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, execution, or adoption, including the parties' agreement, if
any, and otherwise as provided by law.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9(b).)
Defendant offers the declarations of Jessica Sanchez and Yolanda Martinez to authenticate Plaintiff’s signature.
Both demonstrate knowledge of the onboarding process and how employees access the system. Ms. Sanchez
“oversee[s] the development and execution of the Online Application Entry…system, which provides an applicant
with all of the onboarding documents for review and execution as well as stores such documents[,]” (Sanchez
Decl., ¶¶ 1-4), while Ms. Martinez oversees employee use of the system when an employee opts to execute
onboarding and personnel documents on the premises. They explain how each employee securely accesses their
file for purposes of review and execution with a unique user name and password, demonstrating that it would be
an impossibility for anyone other than Plaintiff to have signed the document at issue. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 11;
Sanchez Decl., ¶ 7.)
MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC BCV-19-103444
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 5/4/2021
In weighing the evidence, Defendant has met its burden of proving the contract is authentic, including the
authenticity of Plaintiff's signature.
The Court reviewed and accepted Defendant Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC joinder in the motion. The
Court overrules Plaintiff's objections to the Sanchez Declaration.
Defendant will prepare an order consistent with this ruling for the Court's signature and pursuant to California
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
Copy of minutes of the Court's Ruling mailed to all parties as stated on the attached certificate of mailing.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC BCV-19-103444
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 5/4/2021
MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC
BCV-19-103444
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned, of said Kern County, certify: That I am a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Kern, that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, I reside in or am employed in
the County of Kern, and not a party to the within action, that I served the Minutes dated May 04, 2021 attached hereto
on all interested parties and any respective counsel of record in the within action by depositing true copies thereof,
enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on this date, following
standard Court practices, in the United States mail at Bakersfield California addressed as indicated on the attached
mailing list.
Date of Mailing: May 04, 2021
Place of Mailing: Bakersfield, CA
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Tamarah Harber-Pickens
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Date: May 04, 2021
By: Veronica Lancaster
Veronica Lancaster, Deputy Clerk
MAILING LIST
MARTIN I AARONS ILLIAM M WOOLMAN
THE AARONS LAW FIRM 5260 NORTH PALM AVENUE SUITE 400
23801 CALABASAS RD #2001 FRESNO CA 93704
CALABASAS CA 91302-3316
SHANNON H P WARD CHARLES P HAMAMJIAN
THE AARONS LAW FIRM SAGASER WATKINS & WIELAND PC
23801 CALABASAS RD #2001 5260 NORTH PALM AVE STE 400
CALABASAS CA 91302-3316 FRESNO CA 93704-2217
ERIC S BRIN
ROLL LAW GROUP PC
11444 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90064-1557
Certificate of Mailing
Page 3 of 3
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 11 Date: 05/04/2021 BCV-19-103444 MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC Courtroom Staff Honorable: David R. Lampe Clerk: Veronica D. Lancaster NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RULING ON DEFENDANT EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC DBA SELECT STAFFING'S PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STAYING ENTIRE ACTION; HERETOFORE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 11, 2021 RULING: The Court grants Defendant Employbridge, LLC dba Select Staffing’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Staying Entire Action. (Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (4th Cir. 2015) 787 F.3d 707, 715-716.) Plaintiff does not dispute the applicability of the agreement to her claims, instead challenging the validity of the agreement on grounds the signature presented is not her own and she never electronically signed an arbitration agreement. On July 9, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s petition to compel arbitration, finding Defendant failure to adequately authenticate Plaintiff’s signature on the electronically signed arbitration agreement. The Court granted Defendant leave to resubmit the matter upon securing additional evidence supporting the authenticity of the signature. “Civil Code section 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.)” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1061, citing Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843.) “The effect of an electronic record or electronic signature attributed to a person under subdivision (a) is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, execution, or adoption, including the parties' agreement, if any, and otherwise as provided by law.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9(b).) Defendant offers the declarations of Jessica Sanchez and Yolanda Martinez to authenticate Plaintiff’s signature. Both demonstrate knowledge of the onboarding process and how employees access the system. Ms. Sanchez “oversee[s] the development and execution of the Online Application Entry…system, which provides an applicant with all of the onboarding documents for review and execution as well as stores such documents[,]” (Sanchez Decl., ¶¶ 1-4), while Ms. Martinez oversees employee use of the system when an employee opts to execute onboarding and personnel documents on the premises. They explain how each employee securely accesses their file for purposes of review and execution with a unique user name and password, demonstrating that it would be an impossibility for anyone other than Plaintiff to have signed the document at issue. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 11; Sanchez Decl., ¶ 7.) MINUTES Page 1 of 3 MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC BCV-19-103444 MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 5/4/2021 In weighing the evidence, Defendant has met its burden of proving the contract is authentic, including the authenticity of Plaintiff's signature. The Court reviewed and accepted Defendant Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, LLC joinder in the motion. The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections to the Sanchez Declaration. Defendant will prepare an order consistent with this ruling for the Court's signature and pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312. Copy of minutes of the Court's Ruling mailed to all parties as stated on the attached certificate of mailing. MINUTES Page 2 of 3 MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC BCV-19-103444 MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 5/4/2021 MONTIEL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC BCV-19-103444 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned, of said Kern County, certify: That I am a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern, that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, I reside in or am employed in the County of Kern, and not a party to the within action, that I served the Minutes dated May 04, 2021 attached hereto on all interested parties and any respective counsel of record in the within action by depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on this date, following standard Court practices, in the United States mail at Bakersfield California addressed as indicated on the attached mailing list. Date of Mailing: May 04, 2021 Place of Mailing: Bakersfield, CA I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Tamarah Harber-Pickens CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Date: May 04, 2021 By: Veronica Lancaster Veronica Lancaster, Deputy Clerk MAILING LIST MARTIN I AARONS ILLIAM M WOOLMAN THE AARONS LAW FIRM 5260 NORTH PALM AVENUE SUITE 400 23801 CALABASAS RD #2001 FRESNO CA 93704 CALABASAS CA 91302-3316 SHANNON H P WARD CHARLES P HAMAMJIAN THE AARONS LAW FIRM SAGASER WATKINS & WIELAND PC 23801 CALABASAS RD #2001 5260 NORTH PALM AVE STE 400 CALABASAS CA 91302-3316 FRESNO CA 93704-2217 ERIC S BRIN ROLL LAW GROUP PC 11444 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90064-1557 Certificate of Mailing Page 3 of 3