Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV18067, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18067    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 74

Valladares et al. v. Ralphs Grocery Company

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Yesica Valladares, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for three minors and as survivor of Jamie Antonio Valladares, (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant).  Plaintiff filed a survival action for FEHA discrimination against Jamie Antonio Valladares (Decedent).

Defendant moves to compel arbitration.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant alleges that the Decedent entered into a binding arbitration agreement when he applied for work with Defendant in September 2020.  (Villa Decl., ¶ 5.)  The Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA) states in pertinent part:

“[T]his Agreement is intended to apply to the resolution of disputes that otherwise would be resolved in a court of law, and therefore this Agreement requires all such disputes to be resolved only by an arbitrator though final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial.”

(Villa Decl., Ex. 2.)  Decedent’s name and purported signature are included on the second page of the Dispute Resolution Agreement.  (Villa Decl., Ex. 2.)

            Plaintiff disputes the signature’s validity.  Typically, to authenticate a signature a witness may testify to (1) having seen the signatory sign or (2) using personal knowledge of the handwriting of the supposed writer to determine the authenticity.  Here, Tiffany Villa (Villa) states that she emailed the employment documents to Decedent.  (Villa Decl., ¶ 5.)  Decedent returned the papers, stating that he “hope[s] everything is filled out correctly.”  (Villa Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. 1.) In her deposition, Villa acknowledges that the signature on Decedent’s license, submitted to her as part of the application process, is noticeably different from the signature on the DRA. (Wand Decl., Ex. C.) Additionally, the signatures on other documents from Decedent’s employment do not match the signature on the job application documents file with its motion.  (Wand Decl., Ex. D, E.) When a signature’s validity is challenged, the moving party has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.  (Espejo v. So. Cal. Permanente Med. Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060.) Defendant does not meet that burden.

Defendant argues that the Decedent ratified the signature by receiving the benefits of employment from Ralphs.  Ratification may resurrect an improperly signed contract when one accepts the proceeds of an unauthorized contract.  (Kadota Fig Ass’n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co. (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 815, 819.)  Ratification occurs when the “releasor, with full knowledge of the material facts entitling him to rescind, has engaged in some unequivocal conduct giving rise to a reasonable inference that he intended the conduct to amount to a ratification.”  (Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Zimmer (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 524, 532.)

In Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019), a husband signed an arbitration agreement for his wife while she was mentally competent, but physically unable to sign.  (37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1081.)  The wife did not object to her husband signing the arbitration agreement on her behalf.  (Ibid.)  Valentine held that the wife had not ratified the signature because there was no evidence that she knew the arbitration agreement existed, that her husband signed it, or that she had a right to rescind it.  (Id. at pp. 1090.)  Here, Defendant fails to produce any evidence that Decedent knew the arbitration existed, that someone else signed the arbitration agreement, or that he had the right to rescind it.  Thus, Decedent did not ratify the signature. 

Finally, Defendant argues that if the Decedent did not sign the DRA, then he acted fraudulently, and Plaintiff should be equitably estopped from contesting the validity of the signature.  The elements of equitable estoppel are “(1) [t]he party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel had the right to believe that it was so intended; (3) the party asserting the estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.  (Migliore v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 592, 606.)

Plaintiff’s survival action limits her to recovery to which Decedent would have been entitled but does not impute to her knowledge whether Decedent signed the agreement. Plaintiff does not allege that the signature is valid or invalid, rather, Plaintiff asserts that the signature does not match other documents signed by Decedent at the time, and that an evidentiary issue exists as to the validity of the signature.  Plaintiff is not equitably estopped from challenging the validity of the signature when she does not know whether the signature is or is not valid. 

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

            Defendant to give notice.