agreement containing the arbitration clause in California

2024In other words, a signatory to an agreement with an arbitration clause cannot . . . ‘on the one hand, seek to hold the non-signatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration’s applicability because the defendant is a non- signatory.’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he sine qua non for application of equitable estoppel as the basis for allowing a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration clause is that the claims the plaintiff asserts against the nonsignatory must be dependent upon, or founded in and inextricably intertwine

2013In any case applying equitable estoppel to compel arbitration despite the lack of an agreement to arbitrate, a nonsignatory may compel arbitration only when the claims against the nonsignatory are founded in and inextricably bound up with the obligations imposed by the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209 , 217–219 (Goldman).) “ ‘This requirement comports with, and indeed derives from, the very purposes of the doctrine: to prevent a party from using the terms or obligations of an agreement as the basis for his claims against a nonsignat

2013In any case applying equitable estoppel to compel arbitration despite the lack of an agreement to arbitrate, a nonsignatory may compel arbitration only when the claims against the nonsignatory are founded in and inextricably bound up with the obligations imposed by the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209 , 217–219 (Goldman).) “ ‘This requirement comports with, and indeed derives from, the very purposes of the doctrine: to prevent a party from using the terms or obligations of an agreement as the basis for his claims against a nonsignat

2011For the doctrine to apply, “the claims plaintiff asserts against the nonsignatory must be dependent upon, or founded in and inextricably intertwined with, the underlying contractual obligations of the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” ( Goldman, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 217-218.) “This requirement comports with, and indeed derives from, the very purposes of the doctrine: to prevent a party from using the terms or obligations of an agreement as the basis for his claims against a nonsignatory, while at the same time refusing to arbitrate with the nonsignatory under another claus

2024Precise relies on the holding of Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782 (Garcia), which also involved the Real Time staffing agency.

2022The last step in our discussion of equitable estoppel addresses Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782 .

2024(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) 6 to hold the non-signatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration’s applicability because the defendant is a non-signatory.’ ” (Ibid., internal quotation marks omitted.) “[T]he sine qua non for application of equitable estoppel as the basis for allowing a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration clause is that the claims the plaintiff asserts against the nonsignatory must be dependent upon, or founded in and inextricably intertwined with, the underlying cont

2024In other words, a signatory to an agreement with an arbitration clause cannot ‘have it both ways’; the signatory ‘cannot, on the one hand, seek to hold the non-signatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration’s applicability because the defendant is a non-signatory.’ ” (Ibid., internal quotation marks omitted.) “[T]he sine qua non for application of equitable estoppel as the basis for allowing a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration clause is that the claims [the] plaintiff asserts against the nonsi

2026(See Subcontracting Concepts (CT), LLC v. De Melo (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 201, 211 [finding procedural unconscionability due in part to the adhesive nature of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, one party was not sufficiently fluent in English to understand the agreement, and no one explained “any of the 27 clauses in the five-page [a]greement, including the arbitration clause”].) Defendants cite Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237 (Baltazar) and Caballero v. Premier Care Simi Valley LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 512 in support of their 22 argument that plaintiff’s inabi

2024In other words, a signatory to an agreement with an arbitration clause cannot . . . ‘on the one hand, seek to hold the non-signatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration’s applicability because the defendant is a non-signatory.’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he sine qua non for application of equitable estoppel as the basis for allowing a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration clause is that the claims the plaintiff asserts against the nonsignatory must be dependent upon, or founded in and inextricably intertwined

2023(City of Hope, supra, at pp. 1370–1371.) And in the latter, the party seeking to compel arbitration expressly denied the very existence of the agreement containing the arbitration clause which it sought to enforce. ( Brodke, supra, at pp. 1572–1573.) Another panel of this court understandably concluded the movant could not seek to enforce a provision in an agreement it claimed was nonexistent.

2023The emphasis of the case law is unmistakably on the claim itself, not the relief.” ( Kramer, supra, 705 F.3d at pp. 1131–1132.)5 Because none of Kermani’s claims “are founded in and inextricably bound up with the obligations imposed by the agreement containing the arbitration clause,” we conclude Hyundai cannot enforce the arbitration provision under the equitable estoppel doctrine.

2022Co. (11th Cir. 2011) 648 F.3d 1166, 1171 ]. . . .)” (Goldman, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 218 .) The second is “when the claims against the nonsignatory are founded in and inextricably bound up with the obligations imposed by the agreement containing the arbitration clause.

2022In other words, allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by signatories and nonsignatories, standing alone, are not enough: the allegations of interdependent misconduct must be founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement.” (Id. at p. 219, italics omitted.) Intertwined Claims Relying on In re Apple iPhone 3G Products Liability Litigation (N.D.Cal. 2012) 859 F.Supp.2d 1084 (Apple II), Chart and Praxair maintain plaintiffs’ claims against them are “intimately founded in and intertwined with their arbitration agreement with [Pacif

2022Ctr., LLC (Del.Ch. 2007) 922 A.2d 417 , 430–431.) 9 The purpose of the estoppel doctrine is “to prevent a party from using the terms or obligations of an agreement as the basis for his claims against a nonsignatory, while at the same time refusing to arbitrate with the nonsignatory under another clause of that same agreement.” (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 221 .) Estoppel applies if a plaintiff refuses to arbitrate but asserts claims that are “ ‘dependent upon, or inextricably intertwined with’ ” underlying contractual obligations of an agreement containing the arbitration

2020Co. v. Newton (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 64, 84 .) “In any case applying equitable estoppel to compel arbitration despite the lack of an agreement to arbitrate, a nonsignatory may compel arbitration only when the claims against the nonsignatory are founded in and inextricably bound up with the obligations imposed by the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209 , 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 219 .) In determining whether the plaintiffs’ claim is founded on or intimately connected with the sales contract, we examine the facts of the operative complaint.

2017That the claims are cast in tort rather than contract does not avoid the arbitration clause." ( Boucher v. Alliance Title Co., Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262 , 272, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 440 .) Rather, " ' [t]he plaintiff's actual dependence on the underlying contract in making out the claim against the nonsignatory ... is ... always the sine qua non of an appropriate situation for applying equitable estoppel. ' " ( Goldman v. KPMG , LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209 , 229, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ( Goldman ), quoting In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation (11th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 971 , 976.) "[E]ven if

2017(Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003 .) But a different analysis applies to plaintiffs’ claims. 3 2 UHCA has requested that we take judicial notice of three trial court orders in unrelated cases, compelling the plaintiffs to arbitrate “tort cases related to the use of U- Haul rental vehicles or equipment.” At least two of these cases, however, and possibly the third, involved plaintiffs who were parties to the rental contract containing the arbitration agreement.

2017That the claims are cast in tort rather than contract does not avoid the arbitration clause." ( Boucher v. Alliance Title Co., Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262 , 272, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 440 .) Rather, " ' [t]he plaintiff's actual dependence on the underlying contract in making out the claim against the nonsignatory ... is ... always the sine qua non of an appropriate situation for applying equitable estoppel. ' " ( Goldman v. KPMG , LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209 , 229, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 ( Goldman ), quoting In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation (11th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 971 , 976.) "[E]ven if

2005(Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1071; Fitz v. NCR Corp., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 713 .) But plaintiff failed to establish substantive unconscionability.