Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV00943, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00943    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff Vida Bejemino filed this action against Defendant Connected Care Resources Inc. arising from her employment.

On April 3, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declaration of Eric Fox are overruled.  “For purposes of a petition to compel arbitration, it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.  ‘[T]he court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists . . . .’  (§ 1281.2)  The statute does not require the petitioner to introduce the agreement into evidence.  A plain reading of the statute indicates that as a preliminary matter the court is only required to make a finding of the agreement’s existence, not an evidentiary determination of its validity.”  (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219 (Condee).)

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Reply Declaration of Portia Mina are overruled.

DISCUSSION

When seeking to compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s claims, the defendant must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.  (Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.)  The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the agreement.  (Ibid.)  After the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, it then considers objections to its enforceability.  (Ibid.)

The Court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  Under California law and the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement may be invalid based upon grounds applicable to any contract, including unconscionability, fraud, duress, and public policy.  (Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 154, 165-166.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff signed an Arbitration Agreement in connection with her employment on March 30, 2020.  (Motion at p. 3.)  Defendant provides a copy of the Arbitration Agreement, in which the parties agreed to arbitrate “[a]ny and all disputes or claims by either Party related to the Employee’s application for employment, the Employee’s employment, and/or the Employee’s separation.”  (Fox Decl., Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff declares that she does not recall signing an Arbitration Agreement regarding her employment with Defendant, and if she had been asked to do so, she would not have signed it.  (Bejemino Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

“[A] petitioner is not required to authenticate an opposing party’s signature on an arbitration agreement as a preliminary matter in moving for arbitration or in the event the authenticity of the signature is not challenged.”  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)  But when a plaintiff does not recall signing an agreement, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a signature is authentic, i.e., that it was the act of the plaintiff.  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)

Defendant has not met its burden.  In reply, Defendant provides a declaration from an employee who worked in Office Operations and assisted the Human Resources Department.  (Mina Decl. ¶ 1.)  This employee declares that Naveen Satija provided Plaintiff with the Arbitration Agreement in March 2020, which was standard practice for all employees.  (Mina Decl. ¶ 2.)  After Plaintiff signed it, the signed document was maintained as a record in the regular course of business in Plaintiff’s personnel file.  (Mina Decl. ¶ 2.)  Defendant’s Exhibit 1 “is substantially the same document Naveen Satija collected and maintained on Defendants’ behalf in or about March 2020.”  (Mina Decl. ¶ 3.)  However, the declarant did not witness Plaintiff signing the agreement and does not demonstrate personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s act of signing it.  Without personal knowledge to authenticate Plaintiff’s signature, Defendant has not met its burden, and the Court cannot determine that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

CONCLUSION

The motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 12th day of December 2023