Espejo v. So. CA Permanente Med. Group

After plaintiff filed suit against defendants for wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation, defendants petitioned to compel arbitration pursuant to plaintiff's employment agreement and associated documents. The trial court denied the petition. The court concluded that the trial court erroneously excluded a supplemental declaration as untimely. Because defendants were not required to establish the authenticity of plaintiff's signature on the Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) until challenged by plaintiff in his opposition, they were not required to file the supplemental declaration pursuant to the deadline set by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) for a party’s moving papers. The court also concluded that the declaration established the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Espejo v. So. CA Permanente Med. Group" on Justia Law