|
A California appellate court has held that an employee cannot compel arbitration without providing the trial court with a copy of the purported arbitration agreement.
In Nicholas Labs., LLC v. Chen, No. G039883, 2008 WL 4717313 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2008), Chen was employed by Nicholas. After Chen left his position, Nicholas brought various breach of contract and tort claims against Chen. Chen responded by filing an answer, cross-complaint, and motion to compel arbitration.
The trial court denied Chen’s motion to compel without prejudice, noting that Chen failed to attach a copy of the purported arbitration agreement. Chen executed and submitted a declaration attesting to the existence of an agreement, but Nicholas did not admit that such an agreement existed.
On appeal, the Court agreed that Chen had failed to sustain his burden to show the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Chen argued that he was not required to show an actual authentic copy of the agreement to proceed under California law. See Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp., 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-19 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that document authentication was not necessary as to arbitration agreements).
The Court found Condee inapposite, noting that the trial court only required a copy of the agreement between Chen and Nicholas; it did not demand an authenticated copy of the agreement. Because Chen merely averred that an agreement existed, and Nicholas failed to affirm or deny its existence, the Court found the trial court well within its authority to weigh this evidence and find Chen had not sustained his burden to show the existence of an agreement.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial court had denied Chen’s motion without prejudice, allowing Chen to utilize discovery to obtain a copy of the agreement or ask Nicholas to confirm or deny the agreement’s existence. The Court stressed that “either party could have eliminated the need for this appeal through the exercise of common sense and candor.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|