On a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party bears a slight initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement and can satisfy that burden simply by attaching the signed agreement to the motion to compel, without authenticating it. However, if the plaintiff disputes that he or she entered into the agreement and submits a declaration saying he or she doesn’t remember the arbitration agreement and would not have entered into it if aware of it, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove, by admissible evidence, the existence of the agreement. Here, the defendant and plaintiff submitted proof on the first two steps, but defendant then failed to introduce admissible evidence to show that plaintiff had actually signed the arbitration agreement. Hence, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The opinion repeats the warning that it is almost impossible for the party bearing the burden of proof to overcome on appeal a trial court’s finding that it did not satisfy that burden since the trial court may, in almost all instances, simply not believe that party’s evidence.