Perez v. R.M.T. Contracting

1

ANGEL PEREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. R.M.T. CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

F086606

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

September 26, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No BCV-22-101657 Bernard C. Barmann, Jr., Judge.

Belden Blaine Raytis, T. Scott Belden, Kaleb L. Judy, and Tyler D Anthony for Defendant and Appellant.

Lavi & Ebrahimian, Joseph Lavi, Jordan D. Bello, Vincent Granberry, and Will Tran for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

OPINION

DETJEN, Acting P. J.

Defendant R.M.T. Contracting, Inc. (R.M.T.), a labor contractor appeals from an order of the Kern County Superior Court denying its motion to compel arbitration. R.M.T. contends the superior court "misapplied the applicable burdens of proof" (capitalization omitted) by shifting the burden of proving a defense to the enforcement of a purported arbitration agreement from plaintiff Angel Perez (who raised the defense) to R.M.T.

We find the superior court misallocated the burden of proof, and the error was prejudicial. We reverse the court's order and remand the matter for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Perez was formerly employed by R.M.T. as a forklift operator assigned to packinghouses operated by R.M.T.'s client Sun Pacific Shippers, L.P. (Sun Pacific Shippers). On July 6 2022, Perez filed a class action complaint against R.M.T. and Sun Pacific Shippers alleging various Labor Code violations.

On January 27, 2023, R.M.T. concurrently filed a motion to compel arbitration and a declaration of R.M.T.'s president Rocio Tinajero in support thereof. Tinajero averred in part:

"6. On February 1, 2020, [Perez] was presented with an agreement to arbitrate (the 'Arbitration Agreement'). [Perez] executed the Arbitration Agreement on February 1, 2020 under the name 'Angelo Ramirez.' . . . The Agreement was presented to [Perez] in both English and Spanish.

"7. The Arbitration Agreement expressly provides that an employee may opt-out of the agreement and that '[a]n Employee that opts out . . . will not be subject to any adverse employment action because of that decision ....' Since the execution of the Agreement on February 1, 2020, [Perez] never submitted written notice revoking this Agreement or otherwise opting out of the Agreement."

Attached to Tinajero's declaration was a document in English titled "Arbitration Agreement" and signed by "Angelo Ramirez" and Tinajero on February 1, 2020.

On February 14, 2023, Perez filed his opposition to R.M.T.'s motion. Among other things, he argued the motion must be denied on the basis of fraud in the execution. Perez specified, "he could not read the English-only arbitration agreement" and "Sun Pacific[ Shipper]'s agent obtained [his] signature by misrepresenting the nature of the document he signed." In an accompanying declaration,^[1] he averred in part:

"2. I am a Hispanic male, born in Quito, Ecuador on August 9, 1982, and learned Spanish as my first language. I went to school in Ecuador through the eleventh grade and my schooling was only in Spanish. I am only able to speak and read Spanish. I ask that people communicate with me in Spanish because I do not understand English.

"3. ... I understand that Defendants say I signed the [arbitration agreement] during my employment with Defendants. I cannot read this paper because it is in English. I believe this paper was in a stack of papers that my former supervisor, Hilda Beltran of Sun [Pacific] Shippers, had me sign on February 1, 2020 during my employment. Hilda Beltran never told me that the paper I was signing would give up my right to file a lawsuit nor did she use the word 'arbitration.' She only told me that the paper was 'just policies from the company' and that I needed to sign it to continue working for Defendants. [¶] . . . [¶]

"5. On February 1, 2020, Hilda Beltran called me into her office during my shift. Rocio Tinajero was not present during this time. Hilda Beltran presented me with documents from R.M.T. and instructed me to fill them out. The documents she asked me to fill out were almost all in Spanish because Hilda Beltran and Defendants knew I could only communicate in Spanish. The documents she asked me to fill out are the documents attached as Exhibit 2 to my declaration.^[2] Along with those documents was the English-only arbitration agreement.

"6. A majority of the documents were in Spanish and/or included a Spanish translation. I told Hilda Beltran I could not read English and could only read Spanish and asked her to translate the English-only documents to Spanish so I could understand what Information to put in and what I was signing.

"7. However, when I asked Hilda Beltran to translate the document, which I now understand as the arbitration agreement, she stated that it was 'just policies from the company' and that I needed to sign it to continue working for Defendants. I then requested for a Spanish-version, but she assured me that it was 'just policies from the company.' Hilda Beltran never provided me with a Spanish-version of the document. Although I never received a Spanish version of the arbitration agreement, I quickly signed the documents, including the English-only arbitration agreement because I was still clocked-in for my shift at Sun [Pacific] Shippers and had to return to my station as soon as possible and Hilda Beltran told me that I needed to sign it to continue working for Defendants. I understand that Defendants contend that I received a Spanish version of the arbitration agreement, but neither Hilda Beltran nor anyone else ever gave me a Spanish version of the arbitration agreement. I never received, reviewed or signed a Spanish version of the arbitration agreement. I only received the English document, which Hilda Beltran told me was 'just policies from the company.'

"8. Hilda Beltran never told me that the document was actually an arbitration agreement. She never even said the word 'arbitration' or that I was signing an agreement or contract giving up my right to file a lawsuit. She never told me that by working for Defendants I would be required to give up my right to file a lawsuit against them for any disputes we had against each other. Because she was my supervisor and she knew I could not read English, I believed Hilda Beltran when she told me the document was 'just policies from the company' and I had to sign it in order to continue working for Defendants.

"9. If I had known that by signing the agreement, I would be giving up my right to file a lawsuit against Defendants and I was given the option to not sign an agreement, I would not have signed the agreement."

On February 21, 2023, R.M.T. filed its reply. Among other things, the company insisted Perez "can understand English" and "was provided with a Spanish version of the Arbitration Agreement." (Boldface omitted.) Accompanying the reply were declarations of Tinajero, Beltran, and Jenny Velardi in support of the motion to compel arbitration. Tinajero averred in part:

"2. ... I personally interacted with Plaintiff . . . at various times. My understanding from those interactions is that his first language is Spanish.

"3. However, I have also seen and heard him speaking in English. For example, I was present with Plaintiff at the hospital after Plaintiff's girlfriend was injured. I saw and heard Plaintiff speaking with the doctor in English.

"4. When he worked for RMT, Plaintiff did not have a reputation as someone who could not understand English. Other employees saw and heard him speaking in English, and observed him translating English documents into Spanish for coworkers.

"5. I looked over the paperwork Plaintiff attached as Exhibit '2' to his Declaration, which he filled out on February 1, 2020. Plaintiff understood English enough to correctly fill out the form 'W-4', including noting that he wanted tax withholding to be made at the higher 'Single' rate although he was married. The W-4 form was in English only.

"6. He also filled out the 'I-9' form, which again is in English only. The I-9 form includes a place for preparer or translator information if the individual needed one to complete the form. Plaintiff did not need a preparer or translator to complete the form.

"7. ... I know Plaintiff was presented with a Spanish version of the Arbitration Agreement at issue here. Although I was not present when Plaintiff signed the Agreement, I later signed that document on behalf of RMT. The English version, which Plaintiff signed, was on one side of a piece of paper, and the Spanish version was on the other side.

"8. At that time, all of RMT's arbitration agreements were presented to employees in this double-sided format.

"9. However, when the signed agreements were scanned for saving, usually only the side that was signed is scanned. The two-sided physical original is placed into storage.

"10. RMT has since moved to a two-column format for arbitration agreements, with the English and Spanish text side-by-side."

Next, Beltran averred in part:

"2. I do not specifically remember meeting with Plaintiff on February 1, 2020, when he filled out various forms required by RMT.

"3. However, before that date I had heard Plaintiff speaking English multiple times, and my understanding from talking with Plaintiff was that he had previously worked in jobs that required some level of understanding and reading English. So, I do not believe that he asked me to translate any documents for him on that occasion or told me he did not understand English.

"4. All the arbitration agreements RMT used at that time were double-sided, with Spanish on one side and English on the other side. If Plaintiff had asked me to translate the arbitration agreement...