Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV03340, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03340    Hearing Date: August 28, 2024    Dept: 34

Bobbitt v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC (24STCV03340)

Defendant Sixt Rent a Car, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Action is DENIED.  

Background[1] 

Plaintiff Sheryl Bobbitt (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff was employed as Regional Quality Manager for Defendant Sixt (“Defendant”). Plaintiff was a well-liked and top-performing employee. Plaintiff made multiple complaints concerning discrimination and differential treatment. Instead of investigating Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant retaliated against her and wrongfully terminated her employment, less than two weeks following her most recent complaint.

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-25 for:

1.               Discrimination on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA;

2.               Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;

3.               Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5;

4.               Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; and,

5.               Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

A Case Management Conference is set for August 28, 2024.

Legal Standard

“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 if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) [t]he right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) [g]rounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a) and (b).)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a defense to enforcement (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.) (Id.) “In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)

“If a court of competent jurisdiction. . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4).

Discussion

Defendant moves the court to compel arbitration of all claims and causes of action between Plaintiff and Defendants, and dismiss or, alternatively, stay all further judicial proceedings in this action pending completion of arbitration.

Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement

Defendant submits Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. (Declaration of Kiran Virdee-Chapman, ¶ 3.) Ms. Virdee-Chapman reviewed Plaintiff’s employment file, which is maintained by the Human Resources Department. (Id.) At the time Plaintiff was hired, Defendant signed several “onboarding documents.” (Id.) These documents included an Arbitration Agreement (“Agreement”). (Id.) The Agreement provided that Plaintiff “and [Defendant] agree that any legal dispute or controversy covered by this Agreement, or arising out of, relating, or concerning the formation, scope, validity, enforceability or breach of this Agreement, shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Employment Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA Rules”) then in effect, and not by court or jury trial, to be held (unless the parties agree in writing otherwise) in the county and state where [Plaintiff is] or [was] last employed by the [Defendant].” (Id., ¶ 4.)

Ms. Virdee-Chapman further declares that Plaintiff was provided with the Agreement, along with other “onboarding document,” which she signed on November 11, 2021. (Id., ¶ 5.) Copies of these signed documents are maintained in the employees’ employment files as a matter of policy. (Id., ¶ 6.) Finally, Ms. Virdee-Chapman states that she is “informed and believe[s]” that Plaintiff did not ask any questions about the Agreement, did not indicate that she did not understand the Agreement, and did not indicate that she did not want to sign the Agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Plaintiff contends Defendant’s Motion relies entirely on the evidence provided by Ms. Virdee-Chapman. However, Ms. Virdee-Chapman began working at Defendant in March 2022 and the documentary evidence proffered in support of the Motion to Compel Arbitration was purportedly signed by Plaintiff approximately 5 months before in November 2021. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 5.) The court agrees with Plaintiff that the evidence proffered by Defendant is not based on personal knowledge. Further, Plaintiff contends she does “not have any recollection of ever seeing or signing” the Agreement and does not recognize her purported signature on Agreement. (See Declaration of Sheryl Bobbitt, ¶¶ 1-2.)

The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) While presumably Defendants met their burden to show an agreement to arbitrate, here, Plaintiff does not recall signing the contract, thereby placing the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic.” (Id., at p. 846.) The party seeking to authentic an electronic signature can do so by “presenting evidence of the contents of the contract in question and the circumstances surrounding the contract’s execution.” (Fabian v. Renovate America, Inc. (2019) 42 Cal.App.th 1062, 1067.)

Ms. Virdee-Chapman’s declaration does not provide sufficient evidence that Plaintiff signed the Agreement.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s reliance on Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC, 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 544, (2021) is persuasive. In Bannister, the Court held that an employer must do more than simply recite the login procedure to prove that an employee actually signed an arbitration agreement:

Where, as here, the respondent challenges the validity of the signature, however, the petitioner must ‘establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.’ [] In such proceedings, ‘the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.

(Id. [citations omitted].)

Here, the court finds that the authentication evidence lacking. What we have is an electronic signature on a document Ms. Virdee-Chapman did not present to Ms. Hidalgo as she was not employed at Defendant when Plaintiff purportedly signed the Agreement, did not review with Plaintiff the Agreement, did not watch Plaintiff sign the Agreement, and did not confirm Plaintiff’s review and signature at the time the document was allegedly signed. Defendants simply cannot meet the standard to authenticate evidence.

The motion is DENIED.