ADRIAN LOPEZ v. KMART CORPORATION United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58328 (2015) FACTS: In April of 2013, Kmart hired Adrian Lopez as a cashier in its Concord, California store. At the time, Lopez was 16 years old and a sophomore in high school. Before Lopez began working, he was required to participate in Kmart's online training program. During the program, Lopez was presented with an electronic arbitration agreement. The agreement stipulated any disputes Lopez might have with the company were to be handled out of court in arbitration. Lopez electronically signed the agreement and acknowledged his receipt of the agreement. In January of 2015, one month after his 18th birthday, Lopez filed a class action complaint against Kmart alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. Kmart filed a motion to compel arbitration. Lopez contended that, because he was a minor when he acknowledged the agreement, he is now entitled to disaffirm the agreement and render it void, thus allowing Lopez to pursue his claim in court. QUESTION: Did Lopez have the right to disaffirm the agreement due to him being a minor when he signed it? REASONING: To begin the case, the district court found that the arbitration agreement was indeed valid, but acknowledged that this fact hardly mattered if Lopez had the right to disaffirm the agreement. The court had to find whether Lopez was entitled to disaffirm the arbitration agreement or if he even had the capacity to enter into the agreement at all as a minor. The court found that the California Family Code clearly provides that a minor has the capacity to contract, and that "[except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority [age 18] or within a reasonable time afterwards[.]" Lopez claimed disaffirmance within a month of reaching the age of majority, which the court found to be a reasonable period of time. The court also cited Fife v. Facebook, a case that found that disaffirmance of a contract by a minor rescinds the entire contract, rendering it void. The court also noted that the California Family Code does specifically exclude certain types of contracts from disaffirmance, such as contracts for necessaries for the minor or the minor's family, and ruled that Lopez's contract with Kmart is not one of those types of contracts. DECISION: Lopez had the right to disaffirm the agreement and did so in a timely manner, rendering the agreement void. Kmart's movement to compel arbitration was denied and Lopez was free to pursue his class action claim in court. SIGNIFICANCE: This case demonstrates the power a minor has to disaffirm any contracts he or she enters into and may serve as a caution to those entering into contracts with minors