Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 23STCV01640, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Henry Kuylen sued his former Defendant Whelan Security of California, Inc. dba Gardaworld (“WSCI”) for wrongful termination, violation of California wage and hour laws, and unlawful competition. WSCI moved to compel arbitration of Kuylen's claims based on an arbitration agreement ("the Agreement") that WSCI contends he executed through an electronic signature at the start of his employment at WSCI.. Kuylen opposed the motion on two grounds. First, he never affixed his electronic signature to the Agreement -- somebody from WSCI did. And second, the Agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and thus is unenforceable even if he did execute the Agreement. Neither argument stands up to scrutiny. Accordingly, WSCI's motion to compel arbitration is granted. (Kuylen stated in the introduction to his brief that his claims against WSCI are not encompassed by the Agreement, but he failed to develop this proposition in the body of his brief, and, in any event, it is clear that his claims do fall within the ambit of the Agreement.)

As to Kuylen's argument that he never affixed his electronic signature to the Agreement, the evidence points otherwise. The declarations that WSCI submitted regarding the "onboarding" process for new WSCI employees are persuasive. They demonstrate how it was that Kuylen's electronic signature ended up on the Agreement: he entered it there. The declarations also call into question the credibility of Kuylen's assertion in his declaration that he could not possibly have executed the Agreement. Kulyen's reliance on Ruiz v. Moss Brothers Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, and Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, is misplaced. The evidence that convinced the courts in those cases that the plaintiffs there did not electronically sign the arbitration agreements at issue is absent here. WSCI is right. Ruiz and Bannister are readily distinguishable.

Kuylen fares no better with his argument that the Agreement is unconscionable. Each of the points that Kuylen advances to support this argument is refuted by the Agreement itself and precedent governing what makes an arbitration clause in a contract unconscionable and what does not.