Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group
232 Cal. App. 4th 836
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ruiz, a service technician, sued Moss Bros. in a putative class and PAGA action alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal/rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed expenses, and untimely final pay.
- Moss Bros. petitioned to compel arbitration of Ruiz’s individual claims based solely on a 2011 electronic arbitration agreement that purportedly contained class- and PAGA-waiver language.
- Moss Bros. submitted a personnel-records declaration from Mary Main asserting Ruiz electronically signed the 2011 agreement on 9/21/2011; the declaration did not explain how the signature was attributed to Ruiz.
- Ruiz denied recalling signing the 2011 agreement, said he would not have signed such a waiver if presented, and explained his 2010 new-hire paperwork process (paper and some electronic forms).
- The trial court denied the petition, implicitly finding Moss Bros. failed to prove the electronic signature was "the act of" Ruiz; Moss Bros. appealed.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to authenticate the electronic signature under Civ. Code §1633.9 and Evidence Code §1400.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moss Bros. proved a valid arbitration agreement (authentication of the 2011 e-signature) | Ruiz argued Moss Bros. failed to prove the electronic signature was his act; Main’s conclusory declaration was insufficient | Moss Bros. argued the personnel record and printed e-signature/date suffice to establish the agreement | Held: Moss Bros. failed to meet its burden; the e-signature was not adequately authenticated and petition properly denied |
| Whether Moss Bros. could rely on two 2010 arbitration agreements | Ruiz opposed; those 2010 agreements were not pleaded or attached to the petition | Moss Bros. argued Ruiz signed arbitration agreements in 2010 and the petition should be granted on that basis | Held: Court refused—2010 agreements were first raised in reply and were not properly before the trial court or appellate court |
| Whether late filing of Ruiz’s response resulted in deemed admissions | Ruiz offered reasons and the court accepted late papers; no prejudice shown to Moss Bros. | Moss Bros. argued the petition’s allegations were admitted due to untimely response | Held: Court properly considered Ruiz’s late opposition; no deemed admissions when opposition considered for good cause/no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Dev. (US), 55 Cal.4th 223 (allocation of burdens in petitions to compel arbitration)
- Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, 15 Cal.4th 951 (summary proceeding framework for arbitration petitions and trial court factfinding)
- Condee v. Longwood Management Corp., 88 Cal.App.4th 215 (when signature authenticity is unchallenged, preliminary authentication is not required)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (PAGA waivers unenforceable under California law)
- People v. Skiles, 51 Cal.4th 1178 (writings may be authenticated by circumstantial evidence and by contents)