Lopez v. Bartlett Care Ctr., LLC
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Irene Lopez, a dependent adult with dementia and other serious illnesses, was admitted to Bartlett Care Center (the Facility) in October 2016; she returned after a brief hospitalization on November 4, 2016, and died February 7, 2017.
- Jasmine Lopez (daughter) signed a two-page "Resident-Facility Arbitration Agreement" on the signature line labeled "Resident Representative/Agent;" Irene did not sign. Facility employee Mariana Godinez dated her signature 11/14/16; Jasmine did not date hers.
- After Irene’s transfer to hospital, severe infections and eventual death led Jasmine (as successor in interest and individually) to sue the Facility for negligence, elder abuse, and wrongful death.
- The Facility petitioned to compel arbitration for all claims, relying on the agreement Jasmine signed and asserting Jasmine had authority (actual or ostensible) to sign for Irene and was individually bound by Article Four’s language.
- Jasmine submitted a contrary declaration saying she signed later in the business office without Irene present and that Irene never authorized her to sign; the trial court credited Jasmine and denied the petition.
- The trial court also found the arbitration agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable as to Jasmine’s individual wrongful-death claim and thus unenforceable against her individually.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez) | Defendant's Argument (Facility) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid arbitration agreement bound Irene’s successor claims | Jasmine: she lacked authority to bind Irene; she signed without Irene present and received no authorization | Facility: Godinez witnessed Irene verbally authorize Jasmine during admissions, creating actual or at least ostensible agency | Held: Trial court’s factual finding that Jasmine lacked authority is supported by substantial evidence; arbitration not compelled for successor claims |
| Whether Jasmine was individually bound by Article Four | Jasmine: she was signing only as "resident representative/agent," was not identified as an individual party, and did not understand it waived her individual jury right | Facility: Article Four expressly binds representatives in their individual capacity; Jasmine should have noticed the short, marked form and initialed near Article Four | Held: Agreement procedurally unconscionable as to Jasmine—no clear notice she would be bound individually |
| Whether the agreement is substantively unconscionable (mutuality) | Jasmine: clause carves out evictions/collections benefiting only Facility, creating one-sidedness | Facility: the carve-out can apply to claims by either side | Held: Agreement substantively unconscionable because carve-out is one-sided and favors Facility; unenforceable against Jasmine |
| Whether unconscionable terms should have been severed | Jasmine: Facility did not ask trial court to sever; forfeited on appeal | Facility: carve-out could be severed | Held: Forfeiture/severance argument not preserved; court affirmed unenforceability without severance |
Key Cases Cited
- Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc., 20 Cal.App.5th 835 (appellate standard of review for arbitration denial) (discussing mixed factual and legal review)
- Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC, 148 Cal.App.4th 581 (agency cannot be created by agent’s conduct alone; principal’s conduct required)
- Pagarigan v. Libby Care Center, Inc., 99 Cal.App.4th 298 (patient not bound by nursing-home arbitration signed by others absent authorization)
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (doctrine of unconscionability in arbitration agreements; procedural and substantive analysis)
- Williams v. Atria Las Posas, 24 Cal.App.5th 1048 (standard for reviewing unconscionability determinations; mixed de novo and substantial-evidence approach)
- Samaniego v. Empire Today, LLC, 205 Cal.App.4th 1138 (severance of unconscionable arbitration terms forfeited if not raised in trial court)