Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 23STCV29938, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV29938, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29938 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting other employees’ complaints of sexual harassment by his supervisor.

Defendant Richemont North America Inc. moves to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss this action.

TENTATIVE RULING

The hearing on the motion to compel arbitration is CONTINUED to August 2, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Defendant is to submit a supplemental declaration by July 19, 2024 to satisfy the evidentiary standard set forth in Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at 843-44, 846.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Compel Arbitration and Stay or Dismiss Action

Defendant Richemont North America Inc. moves to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss this action.

Existence of Agreement To Arbitrate

Under California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1343; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.) A party petitioning to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and the party opposing the petition has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.) The court may weigh the evidence by considering affidavits, declarations, documents and oral testimony. (Id. at 357.)

Defendant submits an arbitration agreement purportedly signed by Plaintiff electronically on October 4, 2021. (Declaration of Monica Holmes, ¶ 5; Exh. A.)

In the Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s electronic signature is authentic. Plaintiff states in his declaration that he did not use the electronic signature to sign an Arbitration Agreement. (Rimer Declaration, ¶¶ 3 – 5, 8.)

If an employee denies signing, or even indicates a failure to recall electronically signing the agreement, the moving party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature is authentic. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)

An employer may do this by explaining how the employees name could only have been placed on the arbitration agreement by a person using the employee’s unique login ID and password, that the date and time of the signature is accurately reflected next to the electronic signature, that all employees were required to use their unique login ID and password when they logged into the HR system and signed electronic forms and agreements, and thus, the electronic signature on the arbitration agreement was apparently made by the employee. (Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at 844.)

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.)

(Id. at 843.)

Here, Defendants offer the Declaration of Monica Holmes, Human Resources Business Partner for Richemont North America, Inc., which does not satisfy the above evidentiary standard. Rather, the Holmes Declaration only states:

3. In my capacity as a Human Resources Business Partner, I am familiar with the process by which Cartier provides on-boarding documents, including dispute resolution agreements, to its prospective or newly hired employees. Specifically, as part of the hiring process, Cartier provides new employees with new hire paperwork, which includes among other documents, a Dispute Resolution Agreement. Employees are then permitted to review, complete, return the new hire paperwork at their earliest convenience.

4. In my capacity as a Human Resources Business Partner, I also have access to personnel records Cartier maintains, including personnel files pertaining to Cartier boutiques employees. Personnel files for Cartier employees are maintained in the ordinary course of business electronically. In this case, Plaintiff, JONATHAN RIMER’S (“Plaintiff”), personnel was maintained electronically.

5. In connection with signing this declaration, I reviewed Plaintiff’s personnel file. began working for Cartier as a Sales Experience Manager on June 28, 2021. Cartier implemented its Dispute Resolution Agreement after Plaintiff was already employed with the boutique. As such, Cartier provided Plaintiff with a copy of the agreement, for his review after he was already hired. In Plaintiff's personnel file, I reviewed a copy of the Dispute Resolution Agreement that he signed on October 4, 2021. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's signed Dispute Resolution Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The Court will continue the hearing to permit Defendant to satisfy the evidentiary standard set forth in Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at 843-44, 846.)

The hearing on the motion to compel arbitration is CONTINUED to August 2, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Defendant is to submit a supplemental declaration by July 19, 2024.