Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV12034, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12034    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 30

KRISTOPHER KATALARIS vs BIRD RIDES, INC., et al.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Defendant Bird Rides, Inc., is DENIED.  Moving party to give notice. 

DISCUSSION

The parties’ contentions surround whether the arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) is enforceable because Plaintiff was a minor when he agreed to the terms of the Agreement. The following facts are uncontested by the parties: (1) Plaintiff was a minor when he entered the Agreement (Opposition Papers, 3:3-12.), (2) Plaintiff misrepresented his age (Motion, 2:5-6), and (3) Plaintiff executed the Agreement in his father’s name. (Id.)

Defendant’s Motion is silent as to whether the Agreement is enforceable against a minor who misrepresented their age upon executing the Agreement. Defendant makes clear that they have met their burden of (a) demonstrating the existence of an arbitration agreement and (b) establishing that the opposing party refuses to arbitrate. However, the question of whether the Agreement is enforceable against a minor who misrepresented his age and misrepresented the identity of the person assenting to the contract, still remains.

Plaintiff’s contentions on this inquiry are three-fold. First, Plaintiff argues CIV § 1556 which states: “All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.” Plaintiff concedes that there was a binding arbitration agreement, however, Plaintiff argues that he did not have the requisite competency to enter into the Agreement because of his age. Second, Plaintiff argues that the fraud, which Plaintiff concedes he perpetrated, voids the Agreement, citing Duffens v. Valenti (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 434, 448. Third, Plaintiff argues that the Agreement cannot be enforced against the father because there was no authorization for the minor to enter into the Agreement using the father’s name, nor did the father assent to the Agreement. The Court agrees with all three contentions and denies the instant Motion.

Principally, CIV § 1556 is clear that minors do not have competency to enter into a contract. The question is whether the misrepresentations made by the minor Plaintiff changes this analysis. The Court believes they do not. (See Williams v. Leon T. Shettler Co. (1929) 98 Cal.App. 282, 283; Lee v. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. (1918) 177 Cal. 656, 660; and 1 Witkin, Summary 11th Contracts § 27 (2023) [“It has been held in California that no estoppel arises against the minor by reason of his or her misrepresentation of age.”].)