Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group
246 Cal. App. 4th 1047
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jay Espejo, an SCPMG associate physician, sued SCPMG, Kaiser entities, and Dr. Huang for wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation arising from his termination.
- Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration, relying on an Employee Physician Contract, a Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP), and SCPMG Rules & Regulations; copies bearing an electronic signature for "Jay Baniaga Espejo" (dated May 22, 2011) were attached.
- Initial declarations by SCPMG employees asserted Espejo signed the documents; after the Ruiz decision, defendants filed a supplemental declaration from Julie Tellez explaining the applicant portal, unique username/password process, and how an applicant would electronically sign and how signature, date/time, and IP are recorded.
- Espejo opposed the petition, disputing that he signed the DRP (though he admitted signing the employment contract) and moved to strike Tellez’s supplemental declaration as untimely; he also objected to authentication of the DRP.
- The trial court struck the supplemental declaration as untimely under CCP §1005(b), sustained objections to defendants’ other declarations, found defendants failed to authenticate the DRP under Ruiz, and denied the petition to compel arbitration.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the supplemental declaration was timely (defendants only needed to authenticate once signature was challenged) and that Tellez’s detailed declaration adequately authenticated the electronic signature, so the trial court erred in denying the petition on that basis and remanded for consideration of enforceability and unconscionability issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants met initial prima facie burden to show an agreement to arbitrate | Espejo: defendants failed to authenticate the DRP signature; therefore no enforceable arbitration agreement shown | Defendants: attaching the agreement with a signature suffices for initial burden; authentication required only if challenged | Held: Attaching the signed agreement met the initial burden; once Espejo challenged the signature, defendants had to authenticate it | |
| Timeliness of supplemental Tellez declaration | Espejo: filing after moving papers deadline was untimely and should be stricken | Defendants: authentication was only required after signature was contested; supplemental declaration was appropriately filed in response | Held: Trial court abused discretion in striking Tellez declaration; it was timely because authentication was needed only after opposition challenged signature | |
| Sufficiency of authentication of electronic signature (per Civ. Code §1633.9 and Evid. Code §1401) | Espejo: Tellez’s evidence still insufficient; signature could have been auto-populated or otherwise placed | Espejo relied on Ruiz to argue defendants’ proofs were inadequate | Defendants: Tellez detailed unique login/password, password reset, affirmative acceptance, and how the name/time/IP are generated — linking the electronic signature to Espejo’s account | Held: Tellez’s detailed description provided the factual link Ruiz required and authenticated the electronic signature as "the act of" Espejo |
| Whether the court should decide enforceability (mutual assent, unconscionability, non-signatory joinder) | Espejo: raised multiple enforceability defenses | Defendants: asked to compel arbitration and address enforceability after authentication | Held: Authentication established; trial court must now reach those remaining enforceability issues on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp., 14 Cal.4th 394 (California Supreme Court) (procedures and burdens in petitions to compel arbitration)
- Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 951 (California Supreme Court) (summary proceedings and trial court’s fact‑finding role on arbitration petitions)
- Condee v. Longwood Management Corp., 88 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App.) (petitioner may meet initial prima facie showing by attaching agreement; authentication not required until challenged)
- Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., 232 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App.) (electronic signature must be authenticated with factual showing tying the signature to the signer per Civ. Code §1633.9)