In evaluating disputes over the existence of an arbitration agreement, a trial court only needs to make an evidentiary finding of the agreement's existence, not a determination of the proffered evidence's authenticity, according to a California Court of Appeal.

In La Sala v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., No. A118461, 2008 WL 3274426 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2008), La Sala was employed by Crunch Fitness. After Bally purchased Crunch, Bally presented La Sala with an employee handbook. The handbook referred to a separate document that contained an arbitration agreement. La Sala signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the employee handbook, recognizing, among other things, the existence of the separate document containing the arbitration agreement.

La Sala later sued Bally for sexual harassment. Bally moved to compel arbitration. In opposing the motion, La Sala argued that Bally failed to produce the original, signed documents manifesting his assent to the arbitration agreement and, alternatively, that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The trial court found that there was evidence of an arbitration agreement, but denied the motion on the ground that Bally failed to submit the original document and did not prove the authenticity of La Sala’s signature.

On appeal, the Court noted the parties’ "clear and unmistakable" intent to arbitrate all aspects of the agreement, but it did reserve the issue of the existence of the agreement to the trial court. According to the Court, even the broadest contractual language does not "obviate[] the trial court's duty to determine whether an agreement to arbitrate does in fact exist."

However, the Court found the trial court incorrectly ruled that Bally had not carried its burden of showing the existence of the agreement. By attaching a copy of the entire agreement, submitting a copy of the signature page signed by La Sala, and providing testimony of Bally's business practices, Bally satisfied its burden of establishing the existence of the agreement to arbitrate.

Once the existence of the agreement was established, the burden should have been shifted to La Sala to show that the agreement presented to the court was not authentic. According to the Court, Bally was not required to authenticate the documents, and the trial court was not required to make an evidentiary determination of authenticity. See Cal. Ct. R. 3.1330 (requiring only allegation of the agreement's existence and relevant support, not authentication).

The Court remanded the issue of unconscionability to the trial court in light of its determination that a valid arbitration agreement existed. The Court noted La Sala's allegation that he never knowingly agreed to arbitration, and suggested that this issue may still be for the trial court to decide, despite the parties' "clear and unmistakable" reservation of arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. See Bruni v. Didion, 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1291 (Cal Ct. App. 2008).