Rosalinda Valencia-Chavez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROSALINDA VALENCIA-CHAVEZ, Case No. 25-cv-10600-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. COMPEL ARBITRATION, STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS, AND STAY 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., PROCEEDINGS 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 14

12 13 This is a putative wage and hour class action. Before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo 14 Bank, N.A.’s motion to compel arbitration, strike class claims, and stay proceedings. The matter 15 is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 16 June 11, 2026, is VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-6; Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). Having read the parties’ 17 papers and carefully considered their arguments therein, as well as the relevant legal authority, the 18 Court GRANTS the motion for the following reasons. This order assumes familiarity with the 19 facts of the case and the arguments advanced in the parties’ briefs. 20 Wells Fargo contends that Valencia-Chavez must arbitrate her claims on an individual 21 basis under an agreement she electronically signed before starting employment. Dkt. No. 14-1 at 22 6. Valencia-Chavez’s sole argument in opposition is that Wells Fargo has not sufficiently proven 23 she signed that agreement. Under California law, the burden of attributing an electronic signature 24 to a person “is not great.” Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 844 (2014) 25 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9(a)). On reply, Wells Fargo offered declarations detailing the 26 signing process. Valencia-Chavez filed no objections to those declarations and has thereby 27 waived any. See Dutta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 895 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2018). ] username and password sent to their personal email address. Dkt. No. 17-1 § 3. Additionally, the 2 || applicant must verify their employee ID or phone number. /d. § 4; Dkt. No. 17-2 9.4. A person 3 || with the username “RVALENCIACHA4” signed the arbitration agreement at issue after 4 || performing those steps. Dkt. No. 17-2 § 6-7. Six minutes later, that person completed an I-9 5 form, which required entering Valencia-Chavez’s social security number. /d.; Dkt. No. 17-1 4 7. 6 || This evidence is sufficient to meet Wells Fargo’s burden of proof. See Gonzalez v. Peak Cal. 7 || Rest. Grp., LLC, No. 25-CV-04068-AMO, 2026 WL 765325, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026) 8 || (citing Espejo v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 246 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1062 (2016)); Ugalde v. 9 || Syngenta Flowers, LLC, No. 24-CV-07568-EKL, 2025 WL 1828513, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 10 || 2025) (citing Ruiz, 232 Cal. App. 4th at 844). 11 Finally, while Valencia-Chavez does not remember signing an arbitration agreement, 12 || “courts have consistently rejected the notion that an employee’s failure to recall signing an 13 agreement establishes lack of an agreement.” See Dkt. No. 16-1 8-10; Gonzalez, 2026 WL 14 || 765325, at *3 (citations omitted). 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Wells Fargo’s motion to compel, strike, a 16 || and stay. Given the procedural posture, the Court ORDERS that the instant case is CLOSED for 2 17 || statistical purposes only. Nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as a dismissal or Z 18 disposition of the action, and should further proceedings become necessary herein, any party may 19 || initiate them in the same manner as if the case had not been closed. The parties SHALL FILE a 20 || joint status report on August 27, 2026, and every 90 days thereafter, to inform the Court of the 21 status of the arbitration proceedings. Additionally, within 30 days of the resolution of the 22 || arbitration, the parties SHALL FILE a joint status report and advise whether the case should be 23 || terminated and/or other actions which should be taken. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: May 29, 2026 26 Med rf □

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 28 United States District Judge