Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV07055, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07055    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 74

Destiny Oviedo v. CPE HR. Inc., et al.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The court considered the moving papers and opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff Destiny Oviedo (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants CPE HR, Inc. and California Post-Acute Care, LLC (Defendants). The complaint alleges pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

            On July 24, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to compel arbitration.

DISCUSSION

            The parties dispute whether an arbitration agreement is in place between them. Plaintiff argues she never saw or electronically signed such an agreement. If an employee cannot recall signing an arbitration agreement, the employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic—or resulted from an act of the employee. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846; Evid. Code, § 1401; Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a) [“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 signature was attributable.”].)

            In their reply, Defendants point out that Plaintiff recalls signing onboarding paperwork, which, Defendants claim, included the arbitration agreement. (Reply, p. 2; Oviedo Decl., ¶ 3.) But Plaintiff does not concede that the onboarding paperwork at issue included the arbitration agreement. Moreover, she asserts that she physically signed those documents. (Oviedo Decl., ¶ 6.) By contrast, Plaintiff’s alleged signature on the arbitration agreement is electronic. Defendants further argue the timestamp on Plaintiff’s electronic signature is the same as that on the other onboarding documents Plaintiff allegedly electronically signed. But Defendants have not provided those documents.

            Moreover, Defendants have not proffered sufficient evidence demonstrating the electronic signature resulted from an act of Plaintiff. True, Defendants have provided a declaration from their human resources manager. But the manager does not say how she could infer that Plaintiff produced the electronic signature. For example, the manager does not describe a security procedure and how it would apply to Plaintiff if she electronically signed the agreement. Thus, Defendants have not persuaded the court that the electronic signature is authentic. (See Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 844 [electronic signature with employee’s name and a timestamp insufficient to support a finding that signature was an act of employee].)

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Defendant shall give notice.