Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 2020 No. B299891MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court correctly denied a motion to compel arbitration because the employer failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of a valid, consented-to arbitration agreement. The evidence supported findings that the employee did not sign the agreement, was unaware of its existence, and was not provided an adequate opportunity to review the documents during a chaotic on-boarding process.

Issues

Whether an employer met its burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
Whether an employee provided valid consent to an arbitration agreement through an automated on-boarding process.
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion as a trier of fact in evaluating witness credibility and conflicting evidence regarding the on-boarding process.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude, among other things, that the trial court correctly ruled that a valid arbitration agreement did not exist, and that Murillo did not sign an arbitration agreement and did not know one existed.”

“The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence”

“An employee’s opportunity to review and understand whether there is an arbitration requirement is a relevant factual issue in determining whether he or she ever gave consent to arbitration.”

Filed 9/15/20 Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DINA MURILLO, 2d Civ. No. B299891 (Super. Ct. No. 18CV04396) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION SANTA BARBARA [NO CHANGE IN CORPORATE FITNESS, INC. JUDGMENT] et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 26, 2020, be modified as follows:

1. In the last paragraph on page 2, lines 3-4, the words following “2),” “each prospective employee logs” are deleted and the words “they log” are inserted in its place, so that it reads: “2) they log into their respective computer”

2. On page 3, in the first full paragraph, second sentence, the words in brackets “[his or her]” in two places are deleted and ellipses are inserted in their place, so that the sentence reads: This document provides, in relevant part, that the employee agrees to “submit to final and binding arbitration any and all claims and disputes that are related in any way to . . . employment or the termination of . . . employment.”

There is no change in the judgment.

GILBERT, P.J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.

Filed 8/26/20 Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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.

Murillo v. Santa Barbara Corp. Fitness CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

GILBERT, P.J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.

AI Brief