Fugate v. PeopleWhiz CA1/4

Filed 8/30/24 Fugate v. PeopleWhiz CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

RICK FUGATE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A168050 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. PEOPLEWHIZ, INC., No. 23CV026212) Defendant and Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 After respondents Rick Fugate and Connie Debates filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that appellant PeopleWhiz, Inc., violated the Automatic Renewal Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17600 et seq.;2 the ARL) and two other statutes, PeopleWhiz moved to compel arbitration. Relying on Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 444 (Sellers), the trial court denied the motion, concluding that under the circumstances of the case, a

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not belabor “the facts of the case and its procedural history” because our opinion is unpublished, and the parties know or should know those facts. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 All further statutory references are to the Business and Professions

Code, unless otherwise indicated.

1

reasonably prudent consumer “would have no reason to believe they [were] agreeing to binding arbitration” under the purported “sign-in wrap” agreement the PeopleWhiz website displayed to Fugate and Debates.3 In this appeal, PeopleWhiz contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. Reviewing that claim de novo, we reject PeopleWhiz’s argument and affirm the order accordingly. (Id. at p. 462.) As PeopleWhiz rightly observes, California law generally favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements. (See Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.) But for an arbitration agreement to be enforced, it must first exist. And because general contract principles apply to sign-in wrap agreements — a point made in PeopleWhiz’s opening brief — no arbitration agreement between the parties to this appeal could have existed without their mutual assent. (Civ. Code, § 1550.) Thus, if the trial court correctly concluded that Fugate and Debates “did not agree to [PeopleWhiz’s] terms of use,” then no valid arbitration agreement existed. For that reason, our sole inquiry here concerns whether the parties manifested mutual assent. “[I]n order to establish mutual assent for the valid formation of an internet contract, a provider must first establish the contractual terms were presented to the consumer in a manner that made it apparent the consumer was assenting to those very terms when checking a box or clicking on a button.” (Sellers, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 461.) “[T]he full context of the