Filed 4/21/22 Palacios v. Nowhere Santa Monica CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

CARIN PALACIOS,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NOWHERE SANTA MONICA, 

LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 B309207

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20STCV11880)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Rafael A. Ongkeko, Judge. Affirmed.

De Castro Law Group, José-Manuel A. de Castro and Lori V. 

Minassian for Defendants and Appellants.

Pairavi Law, Edwin Pairavi and Joshua M. Mohrsaz for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________
2

The plaintiff in this sexual harassment case (Carin Palacios) 

speaks no English, only Spanish. In 2018, when she was hired by 

appellant Nowhere Santa Monica, LLC, doing business as 

Erewhon Market (Erewhon), she was asked to sign a document 

that included an arbitration agreement but she was shown only an 

English version of the agreement and had no opportunity to review 

it in Spanish. When Palacios sued Erewhon (and its payroll 

provider appellant Modern HR, Inc., which is included in our 

references to Erewhon), Erewhon moved to compel arbitration. In 

opposition, Palacios and her attorney submitted declarations 

establishing that no Spanish language forms had ever been shown 

to Palacios, and that the only document produced by Erewhon 

during discovery was in English. The motion to compel arbitration 

was denied, and Erewhon appeals from that order. We affirm.

FACTS

Palacios went to work for Erewhon in 2018. About two or 

three weeks after she started, her supervisor told her she had to 

sign some documents in order to receive her paycheck. Palacios 

was taken to a computer, and her supervisor told her to type 

certain information into the computer (her name, date of birth, and 

social security number) at places indicated by the supervisor. The 

document was in English and no one explained its content to 

Palacios.

After this lawsuit was filed, Palacios’ attorneys asked for a 

copy of Palacios’ personnel file. In response, Erewhon produced a 

file that included an arbitration agreement electronically signed 
3

by Palacios’ supervisor, but not signed by Palacios. Erewhon did 

not produce any documents in Spanish.

Erewhon moved to compel arbitration. In support of its 

motion, Erewhon submitted the declaration of Michael Holmes 

(Modern HR’s vice president of human resources and business 

development) describing his familiarity with Modern HR’s online 

onboarding system for new hires and stating that Erewhon asks 

its new hires to sign “Erewhon’s Agreement to be Bound by 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy,” which Holmes defines as 

the “Arbitration Agreement.” As exhibits to his declaration are a 

document Holmes describes as a copy of the English version

Arbitration Agreement and a Spanish version of the Arbitration 

Agreement translated by a certified Spanish language interpreter.

The English version purports to bear Holmes’ signature and 

states “‘Signed by CARIN PALACIOS at 2018-05-

14T117:09:23.531-05:00.’” It also recites, “Signed by Lopez, Isaac 

at 2018:05-14T17:50:52.598-05:00.” The Spanish document does 

not contain any signature, but prints Holmes’ name and title and 

recites, in English, “was signed at 3:09 p.m. GMT-7 on 05/14/2018 

by CARIN PALACIOS.”

Palacios opposed the motion, and submitted her own

declaration and her attorney’s declaration claiming that Palacios 

had not signed any agreement and had not been given a Spanish 

language version of any document. Her attorney attached an 

English version of the arbitration agreement he had received from 

Erewhon in discovery, electronically signed by Isaac Lopez, 
4

Palacios’ manager, but not by Palacios, and purportedly bearing 

Holmes’ signature.

The trial court sustained Palacio’s objections to Holmes’ 

declaration on the grounds that Holmes lacked personal 

knowledge, the documents lacked foundation, and Holmes’ 

statements were speculative because his exhibits were not 

translated. The trial court noted the “various versions of the 

arbitration agreement” making it “unclear, which, if any, was the 

one arbitration agreement which would establish a sufficient 

meeting of the minds between the parties.” Erewhon’s motion was 

denied on September 29, 2020.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

Standard of Review. Where as here the trial court’s 

decision is based on the resolution of a factual dispute, we draw 

every permissible inference in favor of the trial court and will 

affirm if the order is supported by substantial evidence. (Bannister 

v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 545; Laswell 

v. AG Seal Beach, LLC (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1406.)

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s order. 

Erewhon insists its showing in support of its motion to compel 

arbitration was “sufficient” and that, because arbitration is 

favored, its motion should have been granted. Erewhon ignores 

the fact that the trial court found there was no agreement to 

arbitrate — and the fact that Erewhon says there was an 

agreement is insufficient to establish its existence, particularly in 

light of Palacios’ declaration stating that she was not provided 
5

anything in Spanish, statements supported by her attorney’s 

declaration that the only document produced by Erewhon during 

discovery is in English.

At the hearing on the motion, Erewhon asked the trial court 

to deny its motion without prejudice so that it could locate the 

Spanish version supposedly signed by Palacios. Palacios objected 

and the trial court denied the request, explaining in its written 

ruling that Erewhon had failed to authenticate the documents it 

relied on as the arbitration agreement. The trial court reasonably 

found there were too many unanswered questions about the terms 

of the so-called arbitration agreement and whether Palacios had 

an opportunity to review the documents in Spanish.

In short, Erewhon did not meet its burden of establishing the 

existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Fagelbaum & Heller 

LLP v. Smylie (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1363.) More to the 

point, Erewhon did not establish the validity of Palacios’ electronic 

signature. (Civ. Code, §§ 1633, 1633.1, 1633.7, subd. (a); Evid. 

Code, § 1401; Fabian v. Renovate America, Inc. (2019) 

42 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1063 [affirming order denying motion to 

compel arbitration where the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff 

had electronically signed the agreement]; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto 

Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 838-840 [affirming an 

order refusing to compel arbitration where purported agreement 

was electronically signed].)

Erewhon does not dispute Palacios’ inability to read or 

understand English, nor does it explain why the only document 

provided during discovery was in English. On these facts, it is 
6

clear the trial court did not err in finding Palacios’ testimony 

credible.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is 

affirmed. Palacios is awarded her costs of appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

VOGEL, J.*

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second 

Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.