![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
December 23, 2014, Opinion Filed
Defendant and appellant, Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (Moss Bros.), appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of the employment-related and putative class action, representative, and individual claims of its service technician employee, plaintiff and respondent, Ernesto Ruiz. The trial court denied the petition on the ground Moss Bros. did not meet its burden of proving the parties had an agreement to arbitrate the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)1 No statement of decision was requested or issued (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 632, 1291), but the court implicitly found Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that an electronic signature on its proffered September 21, 2011, arbitration agreement (the 2011 agreement) was “the act of Ruiz” (see Civ. Code, § 1633.9; Evid. Code, § 1400). We conclude [***2] Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that Ruiz electronically signed the 2011 agreement. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the petition.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Complaint
In July 2012, Ruiz filed a putative class action complaint alleging Moss Bros. failed to pay Ruiz and other employees overtime and other wages for all hours worked, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide accurate and complete wage statements, reimburse business expenses, and pay final wages in a timely manner. The complaint also alleges representative claims for civil penalties on behalf of Ruiz, other employees, and the state, pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (the PAGA). (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)
B. The Petition to Compel Arbitration
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
232 Cal. App. 4th 836 *; 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 781 **; 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1176 ***
ERNESTO RUIZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MOSS BROS. AUTO GROUP, INC., Defendant and Appellant.
Subsequent History: Decision reached on appeal by, Request denied by Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Toy, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1678 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Mar. 10, 2017)
Related proceeding at Moss Bros. Toy v. Ruiz, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 837 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Sept. 20, 2018)
Prior History: [***1] APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. CIVDS1207201, John M. Pacheco, Judge.
electronic, signature, arbitration agreement, authenticate, arbitration, trial court, declaration, petition to compel arbitration, burden of proof, reply papers, acknowledgement, employees, signing, preponderance of evidence, papers, print, reply
Business & Corporate Compliance, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Arbitrability, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, General Overview, Substantial Evidence, Sufficiency of Evidence, Pretrial Matters, Judicial Review, Contracts Law, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Arbitration Clauses, Evidence, Authentication, Computer & Internet Law, Contracts, Electronic Contracts, Digital Signatures, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Pleading & Practice, Pleadings, Time Limitations, Extension of Time