Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV07853, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07853    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Nairobi Olimpia Lopez vs. Griffith Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., 23STCV07853

Moving Parties: Defendants Griffith Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, and CPE HR, Inc.

Background

            Defendants Griffith Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, dba Griffith Park Healthcare Center and CPE HR, Inc. (Defendants) brought this motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff Nairobi Olimpia Lopez (Plaintiff).

            In her opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that she signed the arbitration agreement or that it is enforceable. Rather, Plaintiff argues that Defendants waived their contractual right to arbitration. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ actions were inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked; and Defendants’ delay in filing their petition has prejudiced Plaintiff. Despite saying that she was not disputing that she signed the arbitration agreement, the last part of Plaintiff’s opposition claims that Defendants failed to authenticate Plaintiff’s electronic signature.

            Defendants argue in their reply that they have not waived their right to arbitration. They argue that the three and a half months from when they filed their answer to filing a motion to compel arbitration is not an unreasonable delay. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced. Finally, Defendants argue that they have provided enough evidence to authenticate the electronic signature.

Analysis

            On the issue of waiver and delay, the delay must be substantial. (Hoover v. American Income Life Ins. Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1193 [waiver found for a delay of 15 months.].) If only a few months have gone by, there has likely not been a waiver. (Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 470, 474 [finding no waiver with a 13-month delay without filing a merits motion, even with some discovery conducted.].)

            Alternatively, Courts have been clear there is waiver if a party engages in substantial litigation, with great significance placed on the filing of a merits motion. (Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1451-1452 [finding waiver after 6 months when the party mentioned its arbitration agreement for the first time after two unsuccessful demurrers, and having participated in discovery.]; Augusta v. Keehn & Associates (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 331, 338-342 [finding waiver when the proponent of arbitration initiated substantial discovery, noticed depositions, filed multiple discovery motions, including requests for sanctions]; Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 980 [finding waiver after a delay of 10 months and the proponent engaged in the extensive discovery that could not be sought in arbitration.].)

            In this case, Defendants filed their motion to compel arbitration just three and a half months after they filed their answer. They have not filed any merits motions. There is no indication that they unreasonably delayed by filing the motion to compel arbitration on September 1 after filing their answer on May 17. Further, discovery had just begun when Defendants filed their motion, as Plaintiff indicates that she served written discovery on Defendants on August 21. The litigation machinery had not been substantially invoked at the time Defendants filed their motion. It is also unclear how Plaintiff would be prejudiced, as litigation has barely begun.

            As for Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant did not authenticate her electronic signature, this contradicts her prior statement in her opposition that there is no dispute that she signed the arbitration clause and agreed to its written terms.

“For purposes of this case, there is no dispute that Plaintiff signed the arbitration clause and agreed to its written terms.”  (Opposition 3:25-26.)

The Court fails to understand why Plaintiff believes that the Defendant must prove the authenticity of the electronic signature when Plaintiff has admitted she signed it. Is not that express admission by Plaintiff adequate to prove that Plaintiff entered into the agreement?

            Regardless, “The arbitration proponent must first recite verbatim, or provide a copy of, the alleged agreement. At this step, a movant need not ‘follow the normal procedures of document authentication’ and need only “allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation as provided in rule [3.1330].’ If the movant bears its initial burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to identify a factual dispute as to the agreement's existence—in this instance, by disputing the authenticity of their signatures. To bear this burden, the arbitration opponent must offer admissible evidence creating a factual dispute as to the authenticity of their signatures.” (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755.)

            Plaintiff has offered no admissible evidence creating a factual dispute as to the authenticity of her signature, only arguing that Defendants did not authenticate it. This is not sufficient to oppose the authenticity of her signature.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

Order

1.      Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

2.      The case is STAYED pending arbitration.