Judge Jon R. Takasugi, Case Number: 22STCV34072, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action is ordered stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

On 10/21/2022, Plaintiff Didiana Ambrocio (Plaintiff) filed suit against QSI of California, LLC, QSI, LLC, and Bay Center Foods, LLC (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) failure to pay wages due; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime compensation; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (5) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements; (6) waiting time penalties; and (7) unfair competition.

Now, Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to submit her claims to binding arbitration and to dismiss this Complaint.

Where the Court has determined that an agreement to arbitrate a controversy exists, the Court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy …unless it determines that… grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Among the grounds which can support rescission are fraud, duress, and unconscionability. (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239.) The Court may also decline to compel arbitration wherein there is possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 (c).)

The party moving to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving [the] existence [of an arbitration agreement] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

Defendant submitted evidence that Plaintiff electronically signed and acknowledged the valid and binding Arbitration Agreement on June 23, 2020. (See Sahakyan Dec., ¶ 10; Ex. B.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she did not sign the agreement, contending that: (1) none of the documents provided to Plaintiff at the time of her hiring included a consent form to sign documents electronically, as required by Civil Code section 1633.5(b); (2) Plaintiff did not access the Workday platform with her personal email address, but rather used a work email address; and (3) Plaintiff’s password was not confidential in that “Defendants at all times had access to Plaintiff and other employees’ Workday and further provided Plaintiff new passwords as current passwords expired which was neither confidential nor unique and nor was it only known to Plaintiff.” (Opp., 2: 26-2:2.)

After review, the Court finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the agreement was electronically signed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not submitted any evidence that could show that Plaintiff signed the agreement. However, Defendant submitted a declaration from a human resources employee, Juanaisela Hamilton, who located a signed agreement within Plaintiff’s employment record. (Hamilton Decl., ¶ 4.) Ms. Hamilton further stated QSI, LLC required all employees to agree to the Arbitration Agreement as a condition of employment and to indicate their assent to the Arbitration Agreement by affixing his or her electronic signature to the document. (Hamilton Decl., ¶ 10.)

While Plaintiff’s opposition argues that she used a work email address (notably, Plaintiff did not submit a declaration to provide foundation to any of the opposition’s claims), Plaintiff does not explain why this would have any bearing on Plaintiff’s ability to log into the system. Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion makes clear that she utilized the Workday system using this email address. Moreover, Plaintiff’s opposition argues that her password was not confidential because she would get new passwords from her employer when they expired. However, Plaintiff seems to be describing a system, which is very common place, of obtaining a password to log in when the previous password expired before being reset. There is no evidence to suggest that Defendant misused this system to improperly access Plaintiff’s Workday account.

Finally, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff that the evidence indicates uncertainty over the circumstances of signing. Plaintiff began work with Defendants on 6/16/2020, and the arbitration agreement was electronically executed on 6/23/2020. The data shows that on 6/23/2020, the username and password associated with Plaintiff’s Workday account was used to log into the Human Resources software platform. During this log-in session, the maintained data shows Plaintiff electronically signed the agreement at 02:01:25 AM EST/ 11:01:25 PST (Hamilton, Exh. B.)[1]

In sum, Defendants have submitted evidence that an electronically signed arbitration agreement was found in Plaintiff’s employment file, and that the username and password associated with Plaintiff’s Workday account was used to log into the Human Resources software platform. By contrast, Plaintiff has not submitted a declaration stating that she did not sign. As such, the assertions advanced in her opposition are without foundation. However, even assuming that the arguments raised in the memorandum of points and authorities were admissible evidence, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence which would suggest that Defendants improperly accessed Plaintiff’s employee file to sign the agreement, or that Plaintiff could not have signed the agreement. Indeed, even though Plaintiff asserts that she had to get new passwords from Defendants from time to time, Plaintiff does not state that at the time of the alleged signing she did not have a unique password known only to her from which to access Workday.

Given that Defendants have established by a preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement exists, and that Plaintiff’s claims are covered by that agreement, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to establish that the arbitration clause should not be enforced. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236. (Pinnacle).)

Plaintiff did not raise any additional arguments in opposition as to why the agreement should not be enforced.

As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate. However, the Court orders this matter stayed, rather than dismissed, pending the completion of arbitration. (Forrest v. Spizzirri (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2023). No. 22-16051.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

[1] In opposition, Plaintiff challenged the legitimacy of this evidence, citing the differing times offered by Defendants as to the electronic signing time. Defendants’ reply makes clear that the difference in reported signing times was merely the result of one report reflecting the Eastern time zone, and the other report reflecting the Pacific time zone. (See Supp. Hamilton Decl.)