Barriga

DISCUSSION

As detailed below, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding that U-Haul failed to satisfy its burden of proving the existence of an express or implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [“Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.”]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

A. Express Agreement to Arbitrate U-Haul argues that Barriga agreed to arbitrate his claims by affixing electronic signatures to the 2007 and 2013 arbitration agreements. We conclude the trial court’s finding that U-Haul did not satisfy its burden to

2 prove an express agreement to arbitrate was not erroneous as a matter of law. 1. Governing Law and Standard of Review A party moving to compel arbitration meets its initial burden by presenting a signed arbitration agreement but, where the validity of the signature is challenged, the petitioner must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical…