scope of an arbitration clause in California

2025(RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1523 (RN Solutions).) “In determining the scope of an arbitration clause, ‘[t]he court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 (Victoria).) “ ‘A long line of California and federal cases holds that claims framed in tort are subject to contractual arbitration provisions when they arise out of the c

2024(Ajida 8 Technologies, Inc. v. Roos Instruments, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 534, 543 [“ ‘The powers of an arbitrator derive from, and are limited by, the agreement to arbitrate.’ ”].) To determine the scope of an arbitration clause, “ ‘[t]he court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.’ ” (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 .) “ ‘ “ ‘A heavy presumption weighs the scales in favor of arbitrability; an order directing arbitration sh

2021Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 551 , emphasized that “[t]he issue of who should decide arbitrability turns on what the parties agreed [to] in their contract.” (Italics added.) Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110 , 1122–1123, held that an arbitrator should decide issues concerning the scope of an arbitration clause when “the parties clearly and unmistakably” so agreed.

2021Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 551 , emphasized that “[t]he issue of who should decide arbitrability turns on what the parties agreed [to] in their contract.” (Italics added.) Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110 , 1122–1123, held that an arbitrator should decide issues concerning the scope of an arbitration clause when “the parties clearly and unmistakably” so agreed.

2025(RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1523 (RN Solutions).) “In determining the scope of an arbitration clause, ‘[t]he court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 (Victoria).) “ ‘A long line of California and federal cases holds that claims framed in tort are subject to contractual arbitration provisions when they arise out of the c

2023We understand Tam’s argument to refer to page 1521 and footnote 16 of the RN Solution opinion. 15 “ ‘In determining the scope of an arbitration clause, “[t]he court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.” ’ ” (RN Solution, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1523 .) The arbitration agreement signed by Tam covered “any and all claims” between Tam and the dealership or its employees “arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoe

2021Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 551 , emphasized that “[t]he issue of who should decide arbitrability turns on what the parties agreed [to] in their contract.” (Italics added.) Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110 , 1122–1123, held that an arbitrator should decide issues concerning the scope of an arbitration clause when “the parties clearly and unmistakably” so agreed.

2021Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 551 , emphasized that “[t]he issue of who should decide arbitrability turns on what the parties agreed [to] in their contract.” (Italics added.) Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110 , 1122–1123, held that an arbitrator should decide issues concerning the scope of an arbitration clause when “the parties clearly and unmistakably” so agreed.

2016(Hotels Nevada, LLC v. Bridge Banc, LLC (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435 .) “The court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made (Civ.

2016(Hotels Nevada, LLC v. Bridge Banc, LLC (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435 .) “The court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made (Civ.

2025“The ordinary rules of contract interpretation apply to arbitration agreements.” (Rice v. Downs (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 175, 185 (Rice).) “The basic goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the parties’ mutual intent at the time of contracting.” (Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 944, 955 .) “Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract.” (EFund Capital Partners v. Pless (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1321 .) “ ‘In determining the scope of an arbitration clause

2023Article 2 provides, in relevant part, that “all disputes, claims or controversies against HRC Fertility and its agents, employees, owners, shareholders, officers, directors, partners, and associates, arising out of the rendering of professional services . . . shall be exclusively determined by binding arbitration.”2 2 As noted above, article 2 also provides for arbitration of “all disputes, claims or controversies . . . arising out of . . . the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity of any written agreement pertaining” to the “rendering of 10 In Rice, this court addressed

2011In Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1123 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 437 ], the court explained: “Although the scope of an arbitration clause is generally a question for judicial determination, the parties may, by clear and unmistakable agreement, elect to have the arbitrator, rather than the court, decide which grievances are arbitrable.” (Italics added, citing AT&T, supra, 475 U.S. 643, 649 .) In Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1413 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 468 ], the court similarly held the contracting parties may reserve to the arbitrator the exclusive aut

2006(AT & T Technologies v. Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 649 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 648 , 106 S.Ct. 1415 ].) Here, the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to have the arbitrator determine the scope of the arbitration clause.

2025Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime, LLC (9th Cir. 2011) 647 F.3d 914, 916 [in case not involving EFAA, courts should enforce contracting parties’ agreement to be bound by different country’s arbitration law]; Ford v. Nylcare Health Plans (5th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 243, 247 [in case not involving EFAA, parties “may designate state law to govern the scope of an arbitration clause in an agreement otherwise covered by the FAA”].) Again, this part of section 2 states that arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist . . . for the revocation of any

2025Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime, LLC (9th Cir. 2011) 647 F.3d 914, 916 [in case not involving EFAA, courts should enforce contracting parties’ agreement to be bound by different country’s arbitration law]; Ford v. Nylcare Health Plans (5th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 243, 247 [in case not involving EFAA, parties “may designate state law to govern the scope of an arbitration clause in an agreement otherwise covered by the FAA”].) Again, this part of section 2 states that arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist . . . for the revocation of any

2025(RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1523 (RN Solutions).) “In determining the scope of an arbitration clause, ‘[t]he court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made [citation].’ [Citation.]” (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 (Victoria).) “ ‘A long line of California and federal cases holds that claims framed in tort are subject to contractual arbitration provisions when they arise out of the c

2025(See, e.g., Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483, 490 [FAA “embodies Congress’ intent to provide for the enforcement of arbitration agreements within the full reach of the Commerce Clause”]; Herrera v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538 , 542 [“Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce because, among other things, it purchases equipment, materials and supplies from out-of-state manufacturers”].) 5 circumstances under which the agreement was made.” ’ ” (Ahern, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 687.) Where the language of the agreement is clear and explicit, it will be

2024(Ajida 8 Technologies, Inc. v. Roos Instruments, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 534, 543 [“ ‘The powers of an arbitrator derive from, and are limited by, the agreement to arbitrate.’ ”].) To determine the scope of an arbitration clause, “ ‘[t]he court should attempt to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.’ ” (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 .) “ ‘ “ ‘A heavy presumption weighs the scales in favor of arbitrability; an order directing arbitration sh

2022(Freeman v. State Farm Mutal Automobile (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479 .) In cases subject to the FAA, courts making this determination “apply ordinary state-law [contract] principles . . . .” (First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 .) Thus, in considering the arbitration provision in this case “we apply the ordinary rules of contract interpretation.” (EFund, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1321 .) “‘“‘The fundamental rules of contract interpretation are based on the premise that the interpretation of a contract must give effect to the “mutual intention” of the parties’”’” a

2022(Freeman v. State Farm Mutal Automobile (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479 .) In cases subject to the FAA, courts making this determination “apply ordinary state-law [contract] principles . . . .” (First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 .) Thus, in considering the arbitration provision in this case “we apply the ordinary rules of contract interpretation.” (EFund, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1321 .) “‘“‘The fundamental rules of contract interpretation are based on the premise that the interpretation of a contract must give effect to the “mutual intention” of the parties’”’” a

2022(Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236 ; Banc of California, N.A. v. Superior Court (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 357 , 367; DMS Services, LLC v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1352 .) “‘Whether an arbitration agreement applies to a controversy is a question of law to which the appellate court applies its independent judgment where no conflicting extrinsic evidence in aid of the interpretation was introduced in the trial court.’” (Jones v. Jacobson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 12 ; accord, Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 497 .) “In determining the scope of an arbitrat