Ramirez

Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Co. CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2024F086371California4,849 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

facts. First, the declaration fails to state whether Ramirez even reviewed the arbitration agreement, the related handbook acknowledgement, or any other documents purportedly signed by him and included in the employer’s moving papers. A review of those documents, the handwritten signatures, and the handwritten initials might have improved Ramirez’s recollection. Second, the declaration does not address whether Ramirez recalled signing the handbook acknowledgement, which is the document relied upon by the employer to show his consent to arbitration. The acknowledgement included a bolded, underlined sentence stating he agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement in the employee handbook. Third, Ramirez’s declaration does not state, one way or the other, whether the handwritten signature on the handbook acknowledgement is his.

2. Based on these omissions, we conclude Ramirez did not rebut the employer’s initial showing that an arbitration agreement existed. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remand for further proceedings to address Ramirez’s unconscionability defense.

FACTS

Appellant Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC (Queen Mining) is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.