Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV02525, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02525    Hearing Date: August 26, 2024    Dept: 57

The Court is granting the motion of Defendant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation ("Northrop), which was joined by Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants in this action.

First, the Court has determined that, based on the evidentiary record presented, Northrop has carried its burden of demonstrating that there is an arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Northrup.  In particular, through the declaration of Carrie White and the attachments thereto regarding Northrop's security procedures for the electronic execution of onboarding documents by prospective employees, Northrop has shown that Plaintiff  signed the arbitration agreement at the commencement of her employment with Northrop.  Those procedures ensured that the Plaintiff, and only the Plaintiff, could have electronically signed the agreement.  

In the Court's view, Northrop's procedures for the electronic execution of arbitration agreements at the onboarding stage fall within the ambit of Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal. App.4th 1047.  In that case, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration of a former employee's claims, holding that the employer authenticated the electronic signature of the former employee on the arbitration agreement through a declaration explaining the security procedures the employer had in place for the use and transmission of prospective employees'  usernames and passwords at the start of the employees' tenure with the employer.   Northrop's procedures in this case line up with the procedures of the employer in Espejo.

Plaintiff's reliance on Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, is misplaced.  In that case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration of a former employee's claims, holding that the employer failed to authenticate the employee's electronic signature on an arbitration agreement because the  employer was unable to show that it had procedures in place that would confirm that the employee was the only person who could have electronically signed the agreement.  That is not the case with Northrop's procedures.

Second, Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of showing that the arbitration agreement with Northrop that she electronically signed is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  The myriad points that Plaintiff marshals to support her argument for unconscionability fall under the weight of precedent that is to the contrary.

In light of the Court's decision to grant Northrop's motion to compel arbitration, the case is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.  The Court is setting a hearing on the status of the arbitration for August 26, 2025 at 8:30.