 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Valencia v. Suros6/7/2005
ave found that Valencia could not understand, or did not have the capacity to understand, the meaning of the arbitration agreement signed by him.
In this regard, this case is indistinguishable from Bolanos v. Khalatian (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1586. In Bolanos, a patient with limited reading skills in Spanish signed a Spanish language arbitration agreement that conformed to the requirements of section 1295. (Bolanos, supra, at p. 1589.) The patient later filed a lawsuit against the doctor and opposed the doctor's petition to arbitrate. The patient's supporting declaration reads very much like Valencia's declaration (although discussing her language abilities in Spanish rather than English). She stated that she reads "only limited Spanish," that she does not remember signing the document, and that she was never given an explanation as to the meaning of the document. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the doctor's petition to compel arbitration, but the appellate court reversed, holding the patient had not shown grounds for invalidating the agreement. In so holding, the court emphasized that the patient's "declaration does not say that she could not read or understand the agreement; only that she is able to read 'only limited Spanish' and that she does not remember signing it." (Id. at 1590, italics added.)
Likewise, Valencia's declaration does not say that he could not read or understand the English language version of the arbitration agreement. Instead, he states generally that he is able to read "some English." As in Bolanos, this fact is insufficient to show that Valencia could not understand the arbitration agreement. Valencia argues "the fatal flaw" in Dr. Suros's arbitration petition "is that the language in the arbitration agreement was in English, and not in Spanish[,] the language best known to be best understood by Mr. Valencia." The trial court apparently agreed with this argument based on the undisputed fact that Dr. Suros spoke only Spanish with Valencia. We accept this factual finding, but it is insufficient to establish a valid contract defense.
Valencia alternatively seeks to uphold the trial court's order based on his assertion that he did not read the document before he signed it. However, even assuming the court found this assertion credible, this fact is legally insufficient to establish a contract defense. Because "it is generally unreasonable . . . to neglect to read a written agreement before signing it" (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 424), the failure to read an arbitration agreement does not prevent the enforcement of the agreement, unless the party shows his or her signature was obtained through fraud or coercion. (Id at p. 423; Bolanos v. Khalatian, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 1590.)
Valencia did not present any factual basis for invalidating the arbitration agreement based on fraud or coercion. In his appellate brief, Valencia admits that he is "not claiming fraud." Likewise, there are no facts showing Valencia was coerced into signing the document. Although he complains that no one explained the document to him, the creation of a valid and enforceable contract under section 1295 does not require an oral explanation. Moreover, the fact that Dr. Suros's office staff "told" Valencia to sign the agreement does not show that he was forced to sign the document against his will.
Valencia's reliance on Ramirez v. Superior Court, supra, 103 Cal.App.3d 746 is misplaced. Although the Ramirez court suggested that "something less" than fraud or coercion would be sufficient to justify the failure to read an arbitration agreement before signing it, the court made this comment in the specific context of an arbitration agreement "signed as part of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|