Burnham-Bruce v. AWTS, LLC

Case: Burnham-Bruce v. AWTS, LLC Case No. CV2025-3059 Hearing Date: August 11, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

Defendant AWTS, LLC’s renewed petition to compel arbitration and request for stay of proceedings is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281 et seq.) “A party seeking to compel arbitration of a dispute bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) A defendant satisfies its “initial burden by attaching to their petition a copy of the purported arbitration agreement bearing [the plaintiff’s] electronic signature.” (Espejo v.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060.) Once the plaintiff challenges “the validity of that signature in his opposition, defendants [are] then required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” (Id. at pp. 1060- 1061; Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 754-755; see also Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 843-844.)

The Court finds that defendant satisfied its initial burden by providing a copy of the arbitration agreement with plaintiff’s electronic signature. (Edmunds decl., ¶¶ 2-4, Exhibit A.) In the opposition, plaintiff Chenel Burnham-Bruce does not challenge the validity of her signature. (See Opposition, pp. 7-8; Burnham-Bruce decl., ¶¶ 5-9.) Accordingly, defendant has shown the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1060; see also Edmunds decl., ¶¶ 6-11, Exhibits B & C.)

In opposing arbitration, plaintiff has failed to show that the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable. (Jenks, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 8;