Cal. Codes » Civil Code
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1633.9 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.

(b)The effect of an electronic record or electronic signature attributed to a person under subdivision (a) is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, execution, or adoption, including the parties’ agreement, if any, and otherwise as provided by law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “2), the court implicitly found Moss Bros, did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ruiz was the person who electronically signed the 2011 agreement (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a)). Substantial evidence supports this finding.”
Espejo v. S. California Permanente Med. Grp., 41 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “The statute states: ‘(a) An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.”
Moss Bros. Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “3d 781 ; Civ. Code, § 1633.9.) We also concluded in Ruiz I that MBAG could not rely on two other arbitration agreements to support its petition-a March 4, 2010, arbitration *429 agreement that MBAG claimed Ruiz electronically signed on March 4, 2010, as part of Ruiz's online…”
Moncibaez v. Stericycle, Inc. CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “Civil Code section 1633.9 governs the authentication of electronic signatures.”
Fisher v. Bird Rides CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “1 Civil Code section 1633.9, subdivision (a) provides an electronic record or signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.”
Valadez v. In-N-Out Burgers CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “) “Civil Code section 1633.9 addresses how a proponent of an electronic signature may authenticate the signature—that is, show the signature is, in fact, the signature of the person the 3 Lara did not deny signing the DRA; on appeal, he argues that it is unenforceable for other…”
Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 3× “4th 836, 843 (2014) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9 (a)) (emphasis in 20 original).”
Banister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Civil Code section 1633.9, subdivision (a), governs the authentication of electronic signatures.”
Bayside Covenant Church v. Superior Court CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “) “Civil Code section 1633.9 addresses how a proponent of an electronic signature may authenticate the signature— that is, show the signature is, in fact, the signature of the person the proponent claims it is.”
Yerena v. Am. Guard Servs. CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a), italics added.”
LaCasse v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc. CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).) The Whitney Declaration avers that LaCasse submitted an electronic signature “through USANA’s online registration portal on August 13, 2015[,] at 12:58 PM to indicate her agreement to the Associate Agreement.”
Cotzomi v. Universal Prot. Serv. CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).) “[T]he burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Cal. Civil Code § 1633.9(a) — 5 cases
Guidry v. Vitas Health Care Corp. of California (S.D. Cal. 2024).
Pliszka v. Axos Bank (S.D. Cal. 2024).
Campbell v. CubeSmart, L.P. (S.D. Cal. 2025).
Stow v. B-East CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
Chavoya v. Merrill Gardens, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.