JOSE NUNEZ VS SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******7394 Hearing Date: April 18, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Date: 4/18/23 (9:30 AM)

Case: Jose Nunez v. SPS Technologies, LLC et al. (*******7394)

TENTATIVE RULING :

Defendant SPS Technologies, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED.

Plaintiff Jose Nunez’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. As stated below, plaintiff shall have the opportunity to respond to defendant’s evidence. As a signatory of the arbitration agreement at issue, Jennifer Adams, defendant’s Director of Human Resources, is qualified to lay the foundation for the additional documents submitted in support of the reply. (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 324 [“any ‘qualified witness’ who is knowledgeable about the documents may lay the foundation for introduction of business records”].)

In this motion, defendant SPS Technologies, LLC seeks to compel arbitration of plaintiff Jose Nunez’s claims against it.

“The moving party bears the burden of producing ‘prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.’ [Citation.]” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165, quoting Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) Here, defendant meets its burden by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear plaintiff’s signature. (See Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) The agreement, titled “Dispute Resolution Policy,” (“Agreement”) is between defendant SPS Technologies, LLC, using its fictitious business name, and plaintiff Jose Nunez. (Olivas Decl. 7 & Ex. A.) Claims arising from plaintiff’s employment with defendant, like the ones asserted in this action, are subject to arbitration. (Ibid. [“Arbitration shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for any dispute, grievance, claim, or controversy of any kind or nature…arising out of, related to, or connected with…your employment relationship with the Company…and the termination of your employment relationship with the Company and which may be brought in state, federal, or local court”].)

“If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement.” (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) Here, plaintiff asserts that he never signed the Agreement. (Nunez Decl. 2.) Plaintiff also asserts that the signature that appears on the Agreement is not his signature and does not resemble his usual signature. (Id. 2, 3 & Ex. 1.) Plaintiff meets his burden in opposing the motion. (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165 [The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that…the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement”].)

“If the opposing party meets its burden of producing evidence, then in the third step, the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.” (Ibid.) Defendant responds by stating that the signature on the Agreement is nearly identical to signatures that appear in other documents that plaintiff signed during his employment with defendant. (Adams Decl. 6-12 & Exs. B-G.) Defendant also argues that even if plaintiff did not sign the Agreement, plaintiff accepted its terms by continuing to work for defendant. (See Craig v. Brown & Root (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420 [continued employment after receipt of arbitration agreement constitutes implied acceptance of agreement].)

Because defendant submitted the additional evidence in reply, the motion is CONTINUED to at in Department 72 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse). No later than five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing date, plaintiff may file a sur-reply not exceeding 7 pages limited to addressing the evidence and arguments raised in reply. The continued hearing will also consist of an evidentiary hearing for the Court to evaluate the parties’ evidence and determine whether plaintiff signed the Dispute Resolution Policy.