Justice Huffman Dissents.
Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC, D069797 (4/1 7/31/17) (Aaron, O'Rourke; Huffman, dissenting), an elder abuse, negligence, wrongful death case, holds that a medical services agreement becomes effective upon execution, and that the 30-day "cooling off" period in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 1295 is not a condition precedent to enforceability. As a result, the party's death during the 30-day rescission window does not invalidate an otherwise enforceable agreement.
The Court primarily relies on the statutory language in 1295(c), "Once signed, such a contract governs . . . until or unless rescinded by written notice within 30 days of signature." The Legislature could have drafted, but did not draft, a provision requiring the passage of a 30-day grace period before the contract would become effective. Here, the decedent passed away shortly after signing, but before the 30-day period had passed, and she did not rescind the agreement.
The Court recognizes, "our result is in conflict with the interpretation of section 1295, subdivision (c) provided by the court in Rodriguez [v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 1461 (2009)]". The Court did not follow Rodriguez because it believed Rodriguez failed to follow the statutory language.
Because the trial court had relied on Rodriguez to deny Defendants' petition to compel arbitration, its order was reversed.
Justice Huffman dissents. He argues that under the facts of this case, it is impossible to know whether the decedent knowingly and voluntarily waived her constitutional right to a jury trial. Justice Huffman explains that the defendant's attorney authenticated the arbitration agreements, without an explanation as to how the attorney could have personal knowledge, and that the circumstances under which the decedent had signed the agreement were largely unknown.
COMMENT: The trial court and the Court of Appeal did not address whether the provision in section 1295(c) violates the Federal Arbitration Act and is thus preempted. The issue was raised by Defendants as a second line of defense, but it was unnecessary to decide the issue.
Comments