Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCV35965, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35965    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. All further proceedings are stayed pending arbitration.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for violation of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Alma Prieto (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (“WGC”) as a Certified Nursing Assistant from January 2, 2022, to April 4, 2022. (Compl. ¶ 8.) WGC promised Plaintiff a $2,500 bonus for working during the COVID-19 pandemic as she would sometimes be required to work with COVID positive patients; WGC never paid Plaintiff this bonus. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

On March 13, 2022, Plaintiff injured her hand while at work. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff saw a doctor who placed her on several work restrictions. (Ibid.) The following day, Plaintiff returned to work with her doctor’s note. (Compl. ¶ 12.) WGC initially attempted to cut down the number of hours Plaintiff could work, but after further conversation Plaintiff was offered light duty accommodations and was allowed to work the entirety of her shift. (Ibid.)

On March 31, 2022, Plaintiff’s supervisor told Plaintiff that someone complained about Plaintiff sleeping on the job. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff told her supervisor that Plaintiff was sleeping on her break. (Ibid.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff was suspended indefinitely. (Ibid.)

On April 4, 2022, WGC terminated Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges this was due to her disability. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has requested her personnel file from WGC, but WGC has refused to provide it to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 16.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting eight causes of action:

1.    Failure to Provide Personnel File;

2.    Failure to Provide Rest Periods;

3.    Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

4.    Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;

5.    Failure to Pay Compensation Due Upon Separation;

6.    Disability Discrimination;

7.    Failure to Prevent Discrimination; and,

8.    Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

On December 15, 2022, WGC filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

On February 9, 2023, WGC filed a Reply.  

DISCUSSION 

                          I.          EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declaration of Arnita Bradshaw Numbers 1-12 are OVERRULED.

                        II.          MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc. moves to compel arbitration pursuant to two arbitration agreements; a brief acknowledgment of the Alternate Dispute Resolution process (the “ADR Acknowledgment”) and a more detailed two-page document entitled California Mutual Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” and “California Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement” (the “Arbitration Agreement”).

California law reflects a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for resolving disputes. To further that policy, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless one of three limited exceptions applies. Those statutory exceptions arise where (1) a party waives the right to arbitration; (2) grounds exist for revoking the arbitration agreement; and (3) pending litigation with a third party creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on common factual or legal issues.” (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 967 [citations omitted]; Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) 

In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The party seeking arbitration has the “burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) The trial court “sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Id.) General principles of contract law govern whether parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236; see also Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) 

A.   Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement

WGC contends that arbitration may be compelled pursuant to either the ADR Acknowledgment or the Arbitration Agreement. WCG attaches both documents to the instant motion. (Ex. B; Ex. A.)

Exhibit B, the ADR Acknowledgment, states:

I understand that any and all disputes regarding my employment with the Company, including any disputes relating to the termination of my employment, are subject to the Alternative Dispute Resolution process, which includes final and binding arbitration. I also understand and agree, as a condition of employment, to submit any such disputes for resolution under that process, and I further agree to abide by and accept the decision of the arbitration panel as the final binding decision and resolution of any such disputes I may have. (Ex. A. at p. 2.)

Plaintiff signed the ADR Acknowledgment and dated it January 6, 2022.

Exhibit A, the Arbitration Agreement reads in relevant part:

The employee identified acknowledgment below (“Employee”), on the one hand, and Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (“Company”), on the other hand (hereinafter individually referred to as “the Party”, and collectively referred to as “the Parties”), agree to utilize mutual binding arbitration as the sole and exclusive means to resolve all disputes that may arise between Employee and the Company. . .

This Agreement applies to claims Employee may bring against the Company for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, wage and hour violations, and claims related to any services provided by the Company to employee, whether directly or indirectly, and torts such as invasion of privacy, assault and battery, or defamation. . .

EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYEE AND THE COMPANY TO ARBITATE ANY AND ALL DISPUTES THAT ARISE OUT OF EMPLOYEE’S EMPLOYMENT WITH COMPANY, AND THAT EMPLOYEE AND THE COMPANY ARE GIVING UP THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JURY. BY SIGNING BELOW, EMPLOYEE CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT EMPLOYEE HAS READ, UNDERSTANDS, AND VOLUNTARILY AGREES TO BE LEGALLY BOUND TO ALL OF THE ABOVE TERMS. (Ex. A at pp. 5, 7.)

Plaintiff’s name is electronically affixed to the Arbitration Agreement above the “Employee Signature” line, and the document is dated January 21, 2022.

Plaintiff concedes the validity of the ADR Acknowledgment but disputes the validity of the Arbitration Agreement. As to the Arbitration Agreement, Plaintiff contends that WGC fails to establish the authenticity of Plaintiff’s alleged electronic signature on the document.

“An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).) “The effect of an electronic record or electronic signature attributed to a person under subdivision (a) is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, execution, or adoption, including the parties' agreement, if any, and otherwise as provided by law.” (Id., subd. (b).) 

The authorities that provide the goalposts for this motion are Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836 and Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047. In Ruiz, the declaration seeking to authenticate the plaintiff’s electronic signature on an arbitration agreement was deemed insufficient where the declarant “summarily asserted” plaintiff electronically signed the agreement and “did not explain how she arrived at that conclusion or inferred [the plaintiff] was the person who electronically signed the agreement” or that the electronic signature “was ‘the act’” of the plaintiff. (Ruiz, supra, 232 CalApp.4th at pp. 844-845.) Thus, the court found the arbitration agreement at issue was unenforceable. (Id. at p. 846.) 

By contrast, in Espejo the “declaration offered the critical factual connection that the declarations in Ruiz lacked,” by detailing “security precautions regarding transmission and use of an applicant’s unique username and password, as well as the steps an applicant [or employee] would have to take to place his or her name on the signature line.” (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1062.)

Here, WGC authenticates Plaintiff’s signature through the declaration of Arnita Bradshaw (“Bradshaw”). Bradshaw is the Senior Human Resources Manager for S&F Management Company, LLC (“S&F”). (Bradshaw Decl. ¶ 1.) S&F provides administrative and professional services to WGC, including human resources management. (Id. ¶ 2.) In this capacity, Bradshaw oversees and maintains compliance with the electronic human resource management system that WGC uses, called iSolved. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Bradshaw attests that every new WGC employee must complete an onboarding process in the iSolved system before they can begin logging time and receiving paychecks. (Id. ¶ 4.) WGC’s Director of Staff Development inputs identifying information about the newly-hired employee into the onboarding system; the newly-hired employee then receives a welcome email at the email address provided to Windsor by the employee. (Ibid.) The welcome email includes a secure link to the employee web portal. (Ibid.)

Once the new employee uses that email to access the registration page, the employee confirms their identity by providing their full name, birth date, social security number, and email address. (Ibid.) The employee is then prompted to review and acknowledge the documents in the iSolved system, including the Arbitration agreement. (Ibid.) As the employee moves through the documents, an electronic signature, date and time stamp is affixed to the document. (Ibid.)

Bradshaw attests that she has reviewed the records from both Windsor and S&F regarding Plaintiff, and has confirmed that Plaintiff accessed the iSolved system on January 20, 2022, using the email address that she wrote on her WGC employment application. (Id. ¶ 7.) Bradshaw attests that on this date, Plaintiff viewed and signed the Arbitration Agreement at 12:49 p.m. (Id. ¶ 8.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues, first, that Bradshaw’s declaration is contradicted by the evidence. Plaintiff notes that Bradshaw asserts Plaintiff executed the Arbitration Agreement at 12:49 pm on January 20, 2022, but the Arbitration Agreement shows Plaintiff signed the document on January 21, 2022, at 12:49 pm. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that it would have been impossible for Plaintiff to access the Arbitration agreement on either January 20 or January 21, at 12:49 pm as Plaintiff received the WGC “welcome email,” including the link to the secure employee web portal, on January 21, 2022, at 2:39 pm. (Prieto Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.)  

On Reply, WGC notes that Plaintiff entered the system and consented to electronic signature on January 20, before she read and signed the onboarding documents. (Ha Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. C.) Additionally, Ha claims that Bradshaw’s testimony that Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreement on the 20^th rather than the 21^st was a typographical error, and that this is corroborated by the face of the Arbitration Agreement. (Ha Decl., ¶ 2.)

Next, Plaintiff argues that WGC fails to show that WGC effectively manages the security procedures of the iSolved system. Plaintiff notes that, contrary to the case in Espejo, the iSolved system does not include the IP address of the signee, or the employee’s unique ID number.

While the Court notes that the iSolved system does not include Plaintiff’s IP address or employee number, the Espejo Court did not state that either the IP address or employee number were prerequisites for finding that an employee’s electronic signature is authentic. Instead, the Espejo Court stated that defendant’s declaration “offered the critical factual connection that the declarations in Ruiz lacked.” (Espejo at p. 1062.)

In Ruiz, the court noted that defendant employer:

[D]id not explain that an electronic signature in [plaintiff’s name] could only have been placed on the 2011 agreement. . .by a person using Ruiz’s ‘unique login ID and password’; that the date and time printed next to the electronic signature indicated the date and time the electronic signature was made; that all [defendant’s] employees were required to use their unique login ID and password when they logged into the HR system and signed electronic forms and agreements; and the electronic signature on the 201 agreement was, therefore, apparently made by [plaintiff] on September 21, 2011, at 11:47 am. Rather than offer this or any other explanation of how she inferred the electronic signature on the 2011 agreement was the act of [plaintiff], [defendant’s agent] only offered her unsupported assertion that [plaintiff] was the person who electronically signed the 2011 agreement.” (Espejo at p. 1062, quoting Ruiz at p. 844.)

Here, while the iSolved system may lack some of the security features present in Espejo, the security and verification systems much more closely resemble those of Espejo than Ruiz.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that WGC fails to establish that Plaintiff consented to conduct the transaction by electronic means. However, on Reply, WGC provides a consent form stating that by selecting “I accept”, Plaintiff was “signifying [her] intent to sign the Terms of Use and Consent to Electronic Communications and Electronic Signature electronically.” (Ha Decl., Ex. C.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that WGC has shown by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Additionally, as neither party disputes whether the arbitration agreement applies to the instant action, and as the arbitration agreement states that it “applies to claims Employee may bring against the Company for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, wage and hour violations,” the Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement governs the instant action.

Accordingly, Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. All further proceedings are stayed pending arbitration.

DATED:  February 21, 2023

___________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court