Filed 4/20/23 Spencer v. Endless Pursuit Corp. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN TROVAN SPENCER, B316215 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV01599) v. ENDLESS PURSUIT CORP. et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Dermer Behrendt, Jeffrey D. Dermer; Theodora Oringher and Kenneth E. Johnson for Defendants and Appellants. Cummins & Franck, Scott O. Cummings and Lee Franck for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________ Endless Pursuit Corp. (Endless), Seed Your Own, LLC, and William Herbe (collectively, the Endless defendants) appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration of an employment action filed by Trovan Spencer. Although the trial court concluded in its initial order that Spencer had not electronically signed the Endless arbitration agreement, the court granted the Endless defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Then, following a motion for reconsideration, the court denied reconsideration but entered a nunc pro tunc order correcting its prior order and denying the motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the Endless defendants argue the court erred in correcting its order absent a change in law or facts. They also contend the court erred because (1) Spencer electronically signed the arbitration agreement; (2) even if Spencer did not sign the agreement, there was an implied agreement to arbitrate; and (3) Spencer electronically signed a second arbitration agreement with Decision HR XXI, Inc. (Decision HR), a professional employer organization, which agreement required Spencer to arbitrate his claims against the Endless defendants. Because the evidence submitted by the Endless defendants compels the conclusion Spencer signed the arbitration agreement, and Spencer does not argue unconscionability on appeal, we reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Parties and Complaint Endless is in the business of picking up and recycling or disposing of household junk in the Los Angeles area under the business name “1-800-Got-Junk?”. Spencer was employed by Endless as a truck team member and driver from April 2018 until 2 his employment was terminated in May 2020. William Herbe, a general manager of Endless, was involved in the hiring of Spencer. On January 14, 2021 Spencer filed this lawsuit against the Endless defendants and Decision HR alleging 11 causes of action, including, among others, for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and hostile work environment in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), interference with his right to medical leave and retaliation for his use of medical leave in violation of the California Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA; §§ 12945.1, 12945.2), wrongful termination in violation of public …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals