## Facts

- Rosa Fabian, a homeowner, alleged Renovate America, Inc. contacted her by unsolicited telephone call regarding financing for solar panels.
- Fabian alleged all communications were telephonic, she was never presented with documents to sign, and she did not sign any financing agreement physically or electronically.
- Fabian claimed Renovate nonetheless arranged financing and caused solar panel payments to be added to her mortgage-related obligations.
- Fabian sued under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and California Contract Translation Act, alleging improper installation and improper financing practices.
- Renovate petitioned to compel arbitration based on an “Assessment Contract” containing an arbitration clause and a DocuSign-style signature block displaying “DocuSigned by” and “Rosa Fabian.”
- Renovate submitted a declaration from its compliance director asserting Fabian “entered into” the contract on a specific date and that the attached copy was true and correct.
- Fabian opposed with a sworn declaration denying she signed the contract and asserting any electronic signature was placed on the contract without her consent, authorization, or knowledge.
- The trial court permitted limited discovery focused on contract formation/authentication; Renovate did not produce DocuSign records or other technical/process evidence (e.g., access logs, timestamps, IP data, or identity-verification steps) tying Fabian to the electronic execution.

## Issues

1. Whether Renovate proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Fabian electronically signed the assessment contract containing the arbitration clause, creating an agreement to arbitrate.
2. Whether Renovate produced competent authentication evidence for the purported DocuSign signature after Fabian’s specific sworn denial of signing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Renovate’s petition to compel arbitration.
- The court held Renovate did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Fabian executed the contract containing the arbitration agreement.
- The court found Renovate’s showing conclusory and missing necessary details about the electronic signing process and identity verification, leaving a “critical gap” in proof.
- The court upheld the trial court’s factual finding that Renovate failed to carry its burden in light of Fabian’s sworn denial and the absence of corroborating electronic-signature evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial burden to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement; when execution is specifically denied, the proponent must prove authenticity and assent by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A writing must be authenticated before it is received in evidence; authentication requires evidence that the document is what its proponent claims.
- For electronic signatures, a document displaying a DocuSign-type notation and a typed name is insufficient, standing alone, to authenticate execution by a particular person when that person denies signing.
- Competent authentication of an electronic signature generally requires evidence describing the signing system and procedures used to verify the signer’s identity and to connect the specific execution event to the alleged signer (not merely generalized assertions that the person “entered into” the agreement).

## Conclusion

Because Renovate could not substantiate that Fabian personally executed the electronically signed contract after her sworn denial—given the lack of specific evidence about the DocuSign process and any records linking her to the transaction—the court affirmed denial of the petition to compel arbitration for failure to prove an agreement to arbitrate.


Fabian v. Renovate Am., Inc., 42 Cal. App. 5th 1062 (Ct. App. 2019)