MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE.*****

Defendants Doo Doo Squad, LLC (“DDS”) and Todd Miller’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiff Melissa Maruschak (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges causes of action against her former employer, Defendant DDS, and Defendant Miller, CEO and owner of DDS, for wage and hour violations and hostile work environment harassment on the basis of Plaintiff’s gender and disabilities.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in Department 28

Defendants move to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement which states, in pertinent part:

Employee and the Company, including its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective parents, owners, directors, officers, managers, employees and agents, mutually agree that any and all existing or future claims or controversies arising out of or relating to Employee's employment [.. .] shall be submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act. . . .

This Agreement includes all claims whether arising in tort or contract and whether arising under statute, ordinance, regulation, public policy or common law and whether seeking equitable or monetary relief . . . .

For avoidance of doubt, this Agreement shall include all claims or controversies that may have already arisen between Employee and the Company. . . .

Employee and Company also agree to submit claims to the arbitrator regarding issues of arbitrability, the validity, scope, and enforceability of this Agreement, jurisdiction, as well as any gateway, threshold, or any other challenges to this Agreement, including claims that this Agreement is unconscionable. . . .

If a specific claim or aspect of a claim is severed while other claims proceed in arbitration, the Parties agree to stay the non-arbitrable claims until the claims subject to this Agreement are fully arbitrated.

BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, I ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT I AM GIVING UP MY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY .... I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS AGREEMENT, UNDERSTAND ITS TERMS, AND HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY AND NOT IN RELIANCE ON ANY OTHER PROMISES OR REPRESENTATIONS.

(Miller Decl. at Ex. A and B.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in Department 28

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) “Once that burden is satisfied, the party opposing arbitration must prove by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition.” (Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.)

The Court may refuse to enforce any contract or any provision of a contract determined to be unconscionable. (Civ. Code § 1670.5.)

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration arguing that she never signed the arbitration agreement and that the purported arbitration agreement in unconscionable.

Plaintiff avers that she did not sign the arbitration agreement, did not authorize anyone to sign it on her behalf, and did not knowingly assent to arbitration. (Maruschak Decl., ¶¶ 2–7.) Plaintiff further avers that she did not use any electronic system, including Jotform or any onboarding platform, to execute such an agreement. (Maruschak Decl., ¶¶ 10–11.)

Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff’s sworn denial of signing the agreement is sufficient to create a factual dispute as to the existence of any arbitration agreement. (See Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060.) Plaintiff is not required to prove that the purported signature is invalid, but only to present admissible evidence calling its authenticity into question. (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747.)

Defendants produced a document purporting to bear Plaintiff’s electronic signature, but Plaintiff argues Defendants fail to provide competent evidence authenticating that signature. Where a party seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement based on an electronic signature, it must present evidence establishing the reliability of the system used to capture the signature and demonstrating that the signature is attributable to the purported signer. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844–845.) Plaintiffs argue Defendants have not met that burden. Plaintiffs emphasize that Defendants have produced no audit trail, metadata, IP address information, or other electronic records linking the purported signature to Plaintiff. (Sommers Decl., ¶¶ 9–10.)

Plaintiff testifies that authentic Jotform-generated documents typically include audit trails, document identifiers, and metadata linking the signature to a specific user and event. (Maruschak Decl., ¶¶ 13–14.) Plaintiff argues that the documents Defendants rely on lacks these features and is inconsistent with how such records are ordinarily generated. Plaintiff also points out inconsistencies between a separate onboarding document dated December 17, 2024

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in Department 28

reflecting incomplete or placeholder entries, including an employee name listed as “asdfs,” and the arbitration agreement Defendants seek to enforce, purportedly from that same date, reflects a fully typed legal name and a precise timestamp. (Sommers Decl., ¶¶ 11–12, Ex. G.)

On reply, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s opposition on the grounds that it was untimely, having been served the day after it was due. The Court, in its discretion, considers Plaintiff’s opposition.

Further, on reply, Defendants respond to Plaintiff’s arguments by producing documents which further support their contention that Plaintiff electronically signed the arbitration agreement. Defendants state:

On March 27, 2026, DDS was able to recover the email that Plaintiff received from Jotform, which Plaintiff deleted, confirming she had signed the same arbitration agreement that DDS authenticated as a business record in its moving papers. In response to Plaintiff’s opposition, evidence that DDS recently recovered these documents is in the supplemental declaration of Todd Miller.

(Reply, 3:8-12.)

In Defendant Miller’s supplemental declaration, he avers:

After reviewing Plaintiff’s Declaration in support of her Opposition to Defendants’ Petition to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss this Action, or in the Alternative Stay All NonArbitrable Claims, filed March 24, 2026, I made a further attempt to recover emails deleted by Plaintiff to try to recover the email that Plaintiff received from Jotform when she signed the arbitration agreement on October 7, 2024 and February 18, 2025. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are screen shots of the emails Plaintiff deleted showing she signed the arbitration agreements. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are the JotForm audit trails showing Plaintiff’s computer I.P. address produced when she signed the October 7, 2024 and February 18, 2025 arbitration agreements.

(Supplemental Decl. Miler, ¶11.)

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden to show the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in Department 28

The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.

While the Court agrees that the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable to the extent it is in an adhesion contract, the amount of procedural unconscionability is minimal.

Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is also substantively unconscionable because (1) Defendants cannot establish assent to the delegation of enforceability and validity to the arbitrator, and (2) because the agreement fails to ensure that Plaintiff will not bear costs unique to arbitration. It provides only that the employer will pay arbitration-related expenses “if required by law,” leaving open the possibility that Plaintiff could be required to incur costs she would not bear in court.

First, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did sign the agreement, as discussed above, and thereby assented to its terms.

Second, the agreement expressly provides, “Employee shall not be required to pay any type of expense relating to the arbitration that the employee would not be required to bear if the Employee were to bring the action in court if such invalidate this Agreement or would otherwise be contrary to the law as it exists at the time of the arbitration.” The Court finds that this language provides adequate protection to Plaintiff regarding the costs of arbitration.

While the Court agrees that the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable in that it is an adhesion contract, the Court does not find the arbitration agreement rises to the level of unconscionability necessary to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce the agreement. It is Plaintiff’s burden to show both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Here, Plaintiff did not meet her burden to show significant, if any, substantive unconscionability to the agreement.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of contract formation is DENIED.

The Court need not reach Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s evidence.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration is GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000021: MARUSCHAK vs DOO DOO SQUAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in Department 28