Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV09155, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09155    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant American Guard Services, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 15 causes of action arising from an employment relationship.

On September 8, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion”) on the grounds that when Plaintiff began working for Moving Defendant, he signed agreements that contain provisions that require him to adjudicate his current claims in binding arbitration.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED with respect to Exhibit I and DENIED with respect to Exhibits M and N.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Plaintiff’s objections to the Declaration of Natalie Solano (“Solano Decl.”) are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to move the parties in an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible.  (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 23.)  The FAA is consistent with the federal policy to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate.  (Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, 57.)  A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.  (CCP § 1281.)  California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.)  On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy unless grounds exist not to compel arbitration.  (CCP § 1281.2.) 

The party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.  (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.)  The moving party can meet its initial burden by attaching a copy of the alleged arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party’s signature.  (Id.)  Alternatively, the moving party can meet its burden by setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion.  (Id.)  It is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.  (Id.)  If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, then nothing more is required for the moving party to meet its burden of persuasion.  (Id.)

If the moving party meets its initial prima facia burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement, which can be done in several ways.  (Id.)  For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement.  (Id.)  If the opposing party meets its burden of producing evidence, then in the third step, the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.  (Id.)

When a plaintiff does not recall signing or agreeing to an electronic agreement, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an electronic signature or acceptance is authentic, i.e., that it was the act of the plaintiff.  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)  A party may establish that the electronic signature was “the act of the person” by presenting evidence that a unique login and password known only to that person was required to affix the electronic signature, along with evidence detailing the procedures the person had to follow to electronically sign the document and the accompanying security precautions.  (Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 545.)

The trial court may resolve a motion to compel arbitration in summary proceedings.  (Gamma Eta Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha v. Helvey (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1097.)  Factual issues may be submitted on declarations and affidavits, or by oral testimony in the court’s discretion.  (Juen v. Alain Pinel Realtors, Inc.  (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 972, 978.)  When the enforceability of an arbitration clause may depend upon which of two sharply conflicting factual accounts is to be believed, the better course would normally be for the trial court to hear oral testimony and allow the parties the opportunity for cross-examination.  (See Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 414.)

Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate

In support of the Motion, Moving Defendant provides evidence of the onboarding documents that Plaintiff filled out and electronically signed before beginning employment on October 27, 2015 and July 23, 2021 (collectively, the “Agreements”).  (See Solano Decl. ¶¶ 15-16, Exhibits B, D.)^[1] 

            The Agreements provide, in part:

“The agreement between each individual employee and the Company to be bound by the Policy creates a contract requiring both parties to resolve most employment-related disputes (excluded disputes are listed below) that are based on a legal claim through final and binding arbitration. Arbitration is the exclusive forum for the resolution of such disputes, and the parties mutually waive their right to a trial before a judge or jury in federal or state court in favor of arbitration under the Policy.”  (See Solano Decl., Exhibit D.)

The Solano Declaration states that the Agreements were obtained from Moving Defendant’s records and describes the process for prospective employees to sign paperwork by using a personal login and password.  (See Solano Decl. ¶¶ 6-14.)  Solano was not responsible for overseeing Plaintiff’s onboarding process; the Solano Declaration provides that a human resources manager, Rafaela Ramirez (“Ramirez”) was present during the process.  (See Solano Decl. ¶ 17.) 

Plaintiff declares that he does not recognize either of the Arbitration Agreements.  (Declaration of Richard Hernandez (“Hernandez Decl.”) ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff declares that he never signed the documents or authorized anyone to electronically sign them.  (Id.)  Plaintiff’s full name is “Richard Frankie Hernandez,” rather than “Richard Frank Hernandez” as it appears in the electronic signature affixed to the 2021 Agreement.  (See Hernandez Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibits 1-2.)  When Plaintiff applied to work for Moving Defendant, he was not able to log into the computer system.  (Hernandez Decl. ¶ 7.)  Instead, an employee at the front desk logged in and completed the documents for Plaintiff.  Plaintiff never entered a password and has no record of receiving an email or text message to create a password.  (Id.) 

 In support of the reply brief (the “Reply”), Ramirez submitted a declaration confirming her familiarity with Moving Defendant’s onboarding process.  (See Declaration of Rafaela Ramirez (“Ramirez Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.)  The Ramirez Declaration notes that Ramirez does not recall Plaintiff having any issues creating an account or filling out the onboarding paperwork,but does not specifically state that Ramirez oversaw Plaintiff during the process.  (See Ramirez Decl. ¶ 10.)

The evidence regarding whether Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreements is in dispute.  Given Plaintiff’s position and the new evidence submitted with the Reply, the Court finds it appropriate to allow the parties the opportunity to provide additional evidence as follows: 1) from Moving Defendant an additional declaration from Ramirez regarding whether she oversaw Plaintiff during the onboarding process as stated in the Solano Declaration; and 2) from Plaintiff in response to the Ramirez Declaration and the Supplemental Ramirez Declaration.   The Supplemental Ramirez Declaration is due on October 13, 2023 and any supplemental evidence or authority submitted by Plaintiff is due on October 20, 2023.  The hearing on this matter will be held on October 27, 2023 at 8:30 a.m..  The hearing currently scheduled for October 6, 2023 is therefore continued to that date. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

           Dated this 6th day of October 2023