On August 02, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Charles, Aaron,
and
Does 1 Through 20 Inclusive,
Medline Industries Lp, An Illinois Limited Partnership,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
v ORIGINAL V
STEVEN A. GROODE, Bar No. 210500 s ?m-
gig n
sgroode@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, RC.
CsokwgngA D' §HW NO
D'T '
2049 Century Park East MAR 2 7 2023
5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067.3107
Telephone: 310.553.0308 BY
Fax No.: 310.553.5583 c HTE gpu'ry
JENNY BURKE, Bar No. 240643
jburke@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road
Suite 800
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: 949.705.3000
Fax No.: 949.724.1201
10 Attorneys for Defendant
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP GE'IH
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO A8
14
XV:J
15 AARON CHARLES, an individual, Case No. CIVSB2216577
16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT MEDLINE INDUSTRIES
LP’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT
17 V. OF MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY
18 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, an Illinois limited PROCEEDINGS
partnership; and DOES through 20, inclusive,
1
19
Defendant. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
20 HON. JOSEPH T. ORTIZ, DEPT. Sl7
21 Date: April 4, 2023
Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Dept: Sl7
23 Trial Date: None Set
Complaint Filed: August 2, 2022
24
Filed Concurrently with Objections t0
25 Declaration 0f Aaron Charles; [Proposed]
Order 0n Objections to Declaration 0f
26 Aaron Charles
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC,
2049c eeeee y Park Easl
5th Floor
L05 Ange‘es CA 90067 3l07
3N1 553 0308
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
I. INTRODUCTION.
Plaintiff Aaron Charles has failed to establish any reason why he should not be bound by the
terms of the Employment and Confidentiality Agreement (“Employment Agreement”), including the
Arbitration Agreement therein, that he signed on September 30, 2019. Plaintiff does not contend that
the agreement is unenforceable or inapplicable to his claims. He simply denies seeing or electronically
signing the agreement. Failure to read or sign a contract is not a defense to its enforcement. Moreover,
under the FAA, there is a strong presumption in favor 0f enforcing arbitration agreements according
OOOONON
t0 their terms. 9 U.S.C. § 2; AT&TMobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (201 1); Perry v.
Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489 (1987); see also Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 90
1 (2000). Plaintiff has not presented evidence to overcome the presumption favoring arbitration
11 agreements.
12 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant Medline Industries,
13 LP’s Motion in its entirety and order Plaintiff to submit his claims t0 arbitration and stay this action
14 pending completion of arbitration.
15 II. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE THAT THE
16 PARTIES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT
17 Plaintiff asserts that he did not sign the Arbitration Agreement or consent t0 electronic
l
18 signature, but other than his self—serving declaration (which ironically is signed electronically), he
19 provides no supporting evidence. Plaintiff has ignored and failed to dispute Defendant’s documentary
20 evidence showing a contract was formed. Defendant’s time-stamped records and security protocols
21 requiring that Plaintiff use a password created and known only t0 him in order t0 effectuate the
22 electronic signature, in addition t0 having provided personal details near the same time, clearly show
23 that the signature was the act of Plaintiff. Defendant provided evidence 0f, and Plaintiff does not
24 dispute, the following:
25 o Plaintiff created a username and password to access Medline’s applicant tracking system,
26 Taleo. The username associated with Plaintiff’s account is peanut_bboyz@yah00.com. In
27
28
2.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Cemury Payk Easl
5m Ftoor
Les Ange‘es CA 90067 3‘07
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
3‘0 553 0308
Document Filed Date
March 27, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 02, 2022
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
v ORIGINAL V STEVEN A. GROODE, Bar No. 210500 s ?m- gig n sgroode@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, RC. CsokwgngA D' §HW NO D'T ' 2049 Century Park East MAR 2 7 2023 5th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067.3107 Telephone: 310.553.0308 BY Fax No.: 310.553.5583 c HTE gpu'ry JENNY BURKE, Bar No. 240643 jburke@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: 949.705.3000 Fax No.: 949.724.1201 10 Attorneys for Defendant MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP GE'IH 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO A8 14 XV:J 15 AARON CHARLES, an individual, Case No. CIVSB2216577 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT MEDLINE INDUSTRIES LP’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT 17 V. OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 18 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, an Illinois limited PROCEEDINGS partnership; and DOES through 20, inclusive, 1 19 Defendant. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 20 HON. JOSEPH T. ORTIZ, DEPT. Sl7 21 Date: April 4, 2023 Time: 9:00 a.m. 22 Dept: Sl7 23 Trial Date: None Set Complaint Filed: August 2, 2022 24 Filed Concurrently with Objections t0 25 Declaration 0f Aaron Charles; [Proposed] Order 0n Objections to Declaration 0f 26 Aaron Charles 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, PC, 2049c eeeee y Park Easl 5th Floor L05 Ange‘es CA 90067 3l07 3N1 553 0308 DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Aaron Charles has failed to establish any reason why he should not be bound by the terms of the Employment and Confidentiality Agreement (“Employment Agreement”), including the Arbitration Agreement therein, that he signed on September 30, 2019. Plaintiff does not contend that the agreement is unenforceable or inapplicable to his claims. He simply denies seeing or electronically signing the agreement. Failure to read or sign a contract is not a defense to its enforcement. Moreover, under the FAA, there is a strong presumption in favor 0f enforcing arbitration agreements according OOOONON t0 their terms. 9 U.S.C. § 2; AT&TMobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (201 1); Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489 (1987); see also Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 90 1 (2000). Plaintiff has not presented evidence to overcome the presumption favoring arbitration 11 agreements. 12 Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant Medline Industries, 13 LP’s Motion in its entirety and order Plaintiff to submit his claims t0 arbitration and stay this action 14 pending completion of arbitration. 15 II. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE THAT THE 16 PARTIES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT 17 Plaintiff asserts that he did not sign the Arbitration Agreement or consent t0 electronic l 18 signature, but other than his self—serving declaration (which ironically is signed electronically), he 19 provides no supporting evidence. Plaintiff has ignored and failed to dispute Defendant’s documentary 20 evidence showing a contract was formed. Defendant’s time-stamped records and security protocols 21 requiring that Plaintiff use a password created and known only t0 him in order t0 effectuate the 22 electronic signature, in addition t0 having provided personal details near the same time, clearly show 23 that the signature was the act of Plaintiff. Defendant provided evidence 0f, and Plaintiff does not 24 dispute, the following: 25 o Plaintiff created a username and password to access Medline’s applicant tracking system, 26 Taleo. The username associated with Plaintiff’s account is peanut_bboyz@yah00.com. In 27 28 2. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Cemury Payk Easl 5m Ftoor Les Ange‘es CA 90067 3‘07 DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 3‘0 553 0308