Fabian v. Renovate America, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
42 Cal. App. 5th 1062 (2019)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Rosa Fabian (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Renovate America, Inc. (defendant) for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the California Contract Translation Act, alleging that solar panels Fabian purchased were improperly installed. Fabian claimed that payments for the solar panels were incorporated into her mortgage payment without her consent. Renovate America filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to a financing contract for the solar panels that Renovate America claimed Fabian had signed. The contract contained an electronic signature that appeared to have been electronically signed by Fabian. Fabian denied having signed the contract. In attempting to prove that Fabian electronically signed the contract, Renovate America relied on the contract itself and a declaration from a Renovate America employee, Mike Anderson, summarily stating that Fabian was present when the contract was signed and that, based on his records, Fabian had signed the contract. The trial court denied Renovate America’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Renovate America had failed to prove that Fabian electronically signed the contract. Renovate America appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Irion, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.