Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Mere Denial of Electronically Signing Document Sufficed
Egerton Says Judge Was Entitled to Give Credence to Disavowal Despite Security Protocols
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A person’s denial of having electronically signed a document is sufficient, in and of itself, to justify a finding that the party contending the signature to be authentic has failed to meet its burden of proof, despite that party’s evidence of safeguards that were in place to maintain the integrity of its electronic system, the Court of Appeal for this district has held.
Justice Anne H. Egerton of Div. Three wrote the opinion, filed Friday and not certified for publication. It affirms an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Sotelo denying the motion by Guess?, Inc. to compel arbitration of the action brought against it by a former employee, Debra Lynn Griggs, who claims wrongful termination and age and race discrimination.
Guess expressed certainty that Griggs electronically signed an arbitration agreement via her PC because “[n]o other person at Guess has the ability to access an employee’s established password” and, “because no one else would know an employee’s password, passwords were never mailed, emailed, texted, left on a voicemail, or provided to anyone.”
Those passwords were created by the employees, themselves.
In affirming a willingness to arbitrate, the employee had to type his or her name in along with the last four digits of the social security number and date of birth.
Griggs’s Declaration
In her declaration, Griggs said:
“Guess claims that in April of 2014, I electronically signed an agreement to arbitrate all disputes against them. I did not.”
The declarant said she had recently married a “seasoned employment lawyer” and remarked:
“Because of [the] treatment I had been subjected to at work during this period, my fiancee, who in 2013 became my husband, was assisting me. Had I seen the arbitration agreement during the time frame at issue, I would have taken it home immediately for my husband to review. I would not have signed the arbitration agreement without first having him review it.”
Sotelo’s Decision
In his June 19, 2016 order, Sotelo said:
“There is no question that Guess presents an electronic signature. However, Griggs presents substantial credible evidence that she did not execute the purported signature.”
The judge went on to say that “Griggs denies signing the arbitration agreement,” and declared: “Accordingly, the Court factual finds that Griggs has established by substantial evidence that the signature presented by Guess is not Griggs’s signature.”
Egerton wrote:
“Guess’s evidence in this case was not uncontradicted and unimpeached, as the trial court’s order makes clear.”
She said Sotelo gave “great weight” to Griggs’s credibility, “in particular her firm declaration, ‘under penalty of perjury,” that she “did not” electronically sign the form.
“Griggs’s denial alone gave the trial court a nonarbitrary basis to reject Guess’s evidentiary showing and to conclude Guess failed to meet its burden of proof” Egerton said.
Guess argued that its security protocols nearly paralleled those delineated by Div. Four of this district’s Court of Appeal in its April 22, 2016 opinion in Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group. There, it was held that there was compliance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.
Egerton responded:
“[H]ad the trial court found Guess authenticated the electronic signature as the act of Griggs, we would be compelled to conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the finding….But that is not what the trial court found, and it is a fundamental principle of appellate review that a mere showing that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding the trial court did not make is insufficient to countermand the factual finding the trial court did make.”
The case is Griggs v. Guess?, Inc., B299173.
Guess was represented by Martha S. Doty and Lisa L. Garcia of Alston & Bird. Acting for Griggs were her husband, Johnny D. Griggs of Griggs Little Law, and Jamon R. Hicks of Douglas / Hicks Law.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company