UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22873-RNS 

CARLOS H. ESPINOZA, and all others 

similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SOUTH BEACH ASSOCIATES, LLC, and 

STEFANO FRITTELLA, individually, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF 

FORMATION OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT 

 The defendants, South Beach Associates, LLC (“South Beach”) and Stefano Frittella 

(“Defendants”), move for entry of Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants on the issue of the 

formation of the arbitration agreement. Although the plaintiff, Carlos Espinoza (“Espinoza”), has 

denied e-signing the Dispute Resolution Agreement containing the arbitration provision or handsigning the Receipt Acknowledgment confirming his agreement, the undisputed documentary 

evidence proves to the contrary. In further support, Defendants state as follows: 

Facts 

1. Espinoza is a former South Beach employee who worked at Social, one of South 

Beach’s restaurants. Demian Maggioni (“Maggioni”) was the General Manager at Social at that 

time. [DE 33-1, p. 9; DE 34-4, p. 7] 

2. Around 2015 or 2016, South Beach implemented a new onboarding system for all 

its restaurants and trained the restaurant managers on the new process. That process included 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 1 of 6
2 

logging employees into the HR work cycle program, having them input their basic information, 

and then having them go through a number of electronic documents. The system required the 

employee to electronically sign each document before allowing them to move on to the next. At 

the end, the system would print out a Receipt Acknowledgment for the employee to sign by hand, 

certifying that the employee had read and electronically signed the computerized documents. [DE 

12-1, ¶¶ 4-5, Ex.1; DE 12-2, Exs. 1-6; DE 34-4, pp. 7-10, 16-17, 21-22, 25-26, 42-46; DE 34-6, 

pp. 11-14, 25-27; DE 34-8, pp. 26-27] 

Maggioni testified that he assisted Espinoza in migrating to the new system. Specifically, 

Maggioni explained that he opened the computer screen for Espinoza, explained what was going 

to happen, was present as Espinoza went through and e-signed the documents, and witnessed him 

hand-sign the Receipt Acknowledgment. Maggioni specifically recalled going through the process 

with Espinoza for two reasons: Espinoza was one of the managers at the restaurant; and Maggioni 

thought Espinoza might sue the company, so he got Espinoza’s file together and gave it to one of 

the owners, Antonio Rizzi (“Rizzi”). Maggioni confirmed both Espinoza’s and his own signature 

on the Receipt Acknowledgment. [DE 34-4, pp. 26-28, 30-42, 50-51, 55-60; DE 34-5] 

Memorandum of Law 

The Court may determine as a matter of law that the parties entered into an arbitration 

agreement if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” concerning the formation of such 

an agreement. Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, 827 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016). 

“A dispute is not ‘genuine’ if it is unsupported by the evidence or is created by evidence that is 

“merely colorable’ or ‘not significantly probative.’” Id. (citations omitted). “The party seeking 

to avoid arbitration must unequivocally deny that an agreement to arbitrate was reached and must 

offer some evidence to substantiate the denial.” Wheat, First Securities, Inc. v. Green, 993 F.2d 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 2 of 6
3 

814, 817 (11th Cir. 1993). 

 Espinoza has denied that he e-signed the electronic Dispute Resolution or that he handsigned the Receipt Acknowledgment of same. Nevertheless, the Court should grant summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants, as Espinoza’s denials do not create a “genuine” issue of fact in 

light of the documentary evidence. 

In support of their motion to compel arbitration, Defendants submitted a number of 

documents that Espinoza signed while employed by South Beach, including the Receipt 

Acknowledgment and his I-9 form. [DE 12-1, Exs. 1-2; DE 12-2, Exs. 1-6] Visual comparison 

of the signatures on the Receipt Acknowledgment and the I-9 form demonstrate that they are the 

same. [DE 12-2, Exs. 1 & 5] 

In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, Espinoza filed an affidavit 

swearing under oath that the signature on the Receipt Acknowledgment was “in no way” his 

signature and was “completely different” than his actual signature. [DE 17-1, ¶ 24] Espinoza 

further swore under oath that he never saw the I-9 form and that the signature on the I-9 form was 

not his. [DE 17-1, ¶¶ 19-20] That, however, was false: Espinoza admitted in his response to 

Defendants’ Request for Admissions that he did sign the I-9 form and that the signature was his, 

and he then confirmed that at his deposition. [DE 34-1, pp. 37-38, 46-47, Exs. 2 & 4] The 

signature on the I-9 form is the same as on the Receipt Acknowledgment. [DE 12-2, Exs. 1 & 5] 

Espinoza also produced his permanent resident card at his deposition and confirmed that 

the signature on the permanent resident card was his. [DE 34-1, pp. 37-38, Ex. 1; DE 34-3] That 

signature likewise matches his signature on the Receipt Acknowledgment. [DE 12-2, Ex. 5; DE 

34-3] Espinoza tried to explain that away by saying that he signed his permanent resident card a 

long time ago. [DE 34-1, p. 37] 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 3 of 6
4 

That Espinoza’s signature on the Receipt Acknowledgment is the same as the I-9 form and 

permanent resident card proves that Espinoza agreed to the Dispute Resolution Agreement and to 

arbitrate his claims. That Espinoza falsely testified about his signature on the I-9 form and tried 

to explain away his signature on his permanent resident card leaves no doubt. 

In addition to falsely denying that the I-9 signature was his, Espinoza also swore that a coworker, Dennis Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), told him while they were working together at Social, that 

South Beach copied employees’ electronic signatures from one document and inserted them on a 

different document. [DE 17-1, ¶ 26] (Apparently, Espinoza’s back-up plan once the evidence 

proved that his signature was on the Receipt Acknowledgment was to argue that it was copied and 

pasted there.) However, Espinoza’s testimony regarding Gonzalez’ alleged statements was also 

false. At his deposition, Gonzalez denied knowing or hearing anything about any such practice, 

notwithstanding Plaintiff’s counsel’s multiple inquiries. [DE 34-9, pp. 10-11, 14-16] 

Further, although Espinoza’s argument is that he did not electronically sign the Dispute 

Resolution Agreement or sign the Receipt Acknowledgment, to the extent that he claims that there 

was no agreement because he did not understand what he was signing, that argument would also 

fail. 

State law governs whether an enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists. Burch v. P.J. 

Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1346 (11th Cir. 2017). “Florida law has long held that a party to a 

contract is ‘conclusively presumed to know and understand the contents, terms and conditions of 

the contract.’” Tara Woods SPE, LLC v. Cashin, 393 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981) (citations 

omitted). “Florida adheres to the principle that a ‘party has a duty to learn and know the contents 

of a proposed contract before [s]he signs it.” Id. “[The] alleged inability to understand the 

Agreement does not vitiate her assent to the Agreement in the absence of some evidence that she 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 4 of 6
5 

was prevented from knowing its contents.” Id.; see also Rocky Creek Retirement v. Estate of Fox, 

19 So. 3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009 ); Otero-Ramos v. Service Finance Co., LLC, Case. No. 

19-61207-CIV-SMITH (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020). The undisputed documentary evidence proves 

that Espinoza signed the Receipt acknowledging that he had read and electronically signed for the 

Dispute Resolution Agreement, and would comply, and he is bound by what he signed.1 

Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Formation of the Arbitration 

Agreement and compel this matter to arbitration. 

Date: October 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Cathy M. Stutin 

 Cathy M. Stutin 

 Florida Bar No.: 91156 

cstutin@fisherphillips.com

Alexander Castro 

Florida Bar No.: 1003630 

acastro@fisherphillips.com 

Fisher & Phillips LLP 

450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Telephone: (954) 525-4800 

 Facsimile: (954)-525-8739 

Attorneys for Defendants 

 

1 Espinoza was also less than honest regarding his English language abilities. He has lived in the 

United States for 20 years—since he was 26 years old. [DE 34-1, p. 5] Although he had an 

interpreter for his deposition, he answered questions asked in English before the interpreter 

translated the questions to Spanish. [DE 34-1, p. 30] And although he initially denied that he 

could read any English, when confronted with the fact that he would accept and sign invoices for 

Social, he admitted that he could read some words—but then said he could only read the names of 

produce. [DE 34-1, pp. 5-6]

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 5 of 6
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 27, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in 

the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF 

or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

/s/ Cathy M. Stutin 

 Cathy M. Stutin 

SERVICE LIST

J.H. Zidell 

zabogado@aol.com

Natalie Staroschak 

nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com

300 71st Street, Suite 605 

Miami Beach, Florida 33141 

Telephone: (305)-865-6766 

Facsimile: (305)-865-7167 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 6 of 6