broadly worded arbitration clause in California

2023At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” ’ (See also Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 660 [broad provisions ‘are consistently interpreted as applying to extracontractual disputes between the contracting parties’].)” (Vaughn, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at pp. 220–221.) “Consistent[ly] with the proposition that ‘relating to’ acquires meaning from the subjects being related, the phrase normally encompasses extracontractual claims only ‘so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.’ (Berman v. Dean W

2023(See Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 601, fn. 3 [arbitration provision “applicable to ‘[a]ny and all disputes’ between trustees or beneficiaries, ‘concerning any property owned by any trust(s) or the operation of any trust created herein’ ”was a “broad” provision]; Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 651, 659 [“The language ‘arising out of or relating to’ as used in the parties’ 17 arbitration provision is generally considered a broad provision.”].) “ ‘It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort

2023As explained in Rice v. Downs (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 175 , at page 186, “ ‘It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort claims that may arise under or from the contractual relationship.

2022(E.g., Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 686, 689 [arbitration required where hospital’s complaint was based on insurer’s refusal to renegotiate reimbursement rates provided for in contract; “[i]t has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause, such as we have here, may extend to tort claims that may arise under or from the contractual relationship”].) As more recently explained in Howard v. Goldbloom, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at page 664 , “Broad arbitration clauses are interpreted to apply to extracontractual di

2021Indeed, Coast Plaza, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 686 recognized that “a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort claims that may arise under or from the contractual relationship.” The logical implication of this principle is that a narrowly worded arbitration clause may not so extend.

2021(See Coast Plaza, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 [“It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause, such as we have here, may extend to tort claims that may arise under or from the contractual relationship.”]; Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003 [“The phrase ‘any controversy . . . arising out of or relating to this contract . . .’ is certainly broad enough to embrace tort as well as contractual liabilities so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.”].) In Coast Plaza,

2016At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” (Coast Plaza, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 686 .) “ ‘[W]here contracts provide arbitration for “ ‘any controversy . . . arising out of or relating to the contract . . .’ ” the courts have held such arbitration agreements sufficiently broad to include torts, as well as contractual, liabilities so long as the tort claims “have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.” ’ ” (Izzi v. Mesquite Country Club (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1309 , 1315–1316.) As the Ninth Circuit stated in Sim

2016At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” (Coast Plaza, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 686 .) “ ‘[W]here contracts provide arbitration for “ ‘any controversy . . . arising out of or relating to the contract . . .’ ” the courts have held such arbitration agreements sufficiently broad to include torts, as well as contractual, liabilities so long as the tort claims “have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.” ’ ” (Izzi v. Mesquite Country Club (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1309 , 1315–1316.) As the Ninth Circuit stated in Sim

2023At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” ’ (See also Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 660 [broad provisions ‘are consistently interpreted as applying to extracontractual disputes between the contracting parties’].)” (Vaughn, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at pp. 220–221.) “Consistent[ly] with the proposition that ‘relating to’ acquires meaning from the subjects being related, the phrase normally encompasses extracontractual claims only ‘so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.’ (Berman v. Dean W

2021(See Coast Plaza, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 [“It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause, such as we have here, may extend to tort claims that may arise under or from the contractual relationship.”]; Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003 [“The phrase ‘any controversy . . . arising out of or relating to this contract . . .’ is certainly broad enough to embrace tort as well as contractual liabilities so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.”].) In Coast Plaza,

2021(Id. at p. 185; see also Bono v. David (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063 (Bono).) Whether a particular dispute is within the scope of an arbitration provision “rests substantially on whether the clause in question is ‘broad’ or ‘narrow.’” ( Bono, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 15 at p. 1067.) Broad arbitration provisions use language such as “any claim arising from or related to this agreement,” or “arising in connection with the [a]greement.” (Rice, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 186 .) “It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort claims tha

2021(Id. at p. 185; see also Bono v. David (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063 (Bono).) Whether a particular dispute is within the scope of an arbitration provision “rests substantially on whether the clause in question is ‘broad’ or ‘narrow.’” ( Bono, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 15 at p. 1067.) Broad arbitration provisions use language such as “any claim arising from or related to this agreement,” or “arising in connection with the [a]greement.” (Rice, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 186 .) “It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort claims tha

2001Here, in a broadly-worded arbitration clause, the parties agreed that "[a]ny disputes over this Agreement ... shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration in accordance with the rules then obtaining under the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure." That clause has sufficient breadth to include "`all controversies, whether legal, factual, equitable, contractual or tortious, having their roots in the [parties'] relationship....'" ( Tate v. Saratoga Savings & Loan Assn. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 843, 855 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 440 , criticized on other grounds in Advanced Micro Devices,

2001Here, in a broadly-worded arbitration clause, the parties agreed that "[a]ny disputes over this Agreement ... shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration in accordance with the rules then obtaining under the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure." That clause has sufficient breadth to include "`all controversies, whether legal, factual, equitable, contractual or tortious, having their roots in the [parties'] relationship....'" ( Tate v. Saratoga Savings & Loan Assn. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 843, 855 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 440 , criticized on other grounds in Advanced Micro Devices,

2023At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” ’ (See also Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 660 [broad provisions ‘are consistently interpreted as applying to extracontractual disputes between the contracting parties’].)” (Vaughn, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at pp. 220–221.) “Consistent[ly] with the proposition that ‘relating to’ acquires meaning from the subjects being related, the phrase normally encompasses extracontractual claims only ‘so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.’ (Berman v. Dean W

2023At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” ’ (See also Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 660 [broad provisions ‘are consistently interpreted as applying to extracontractual disputes between the contracting parties’].)” (Vaughn, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at pp. 220–221.) “Consistent[ly] with the proposition that ‘relating to’ acquires meaning from the subjects being related, the phrase normally encompasses extracontractual claims only ‘so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.’ (Berman v. Dean W

2023(See Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 601, fn. 3 [arbitration provision “applicable to ‘[a]ny and all disputes’ between trustees or beneficiaries, ‘concerning any property owned by any trust(s) or the operation of any trust created herein’ ”was a “broad” provision]; Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 651, 659 [“The language ‘arising out of or relating to’ as used in the parties’ 17 arbitration provision is generally considered a broad provision.”].) “ ‘It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort

2023At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” ’ (See also Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 660 [broad provisions ‘are consistently interpreted as applying to extracontractual disputes between the contracting parties’].)” (Vaughn, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at pp. 220–221.) “Consistent[ly] with the proposition that ‘relating to’ acquires meaning from the subjects being related, the phrase normally encompasses extracontractual claims only ‘so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.’ (Berman v. Dean W

2023At most, the requirement is that the dispute must arise out of contract.’ ” ’ (See also Khalatian, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 660 [broad provisions ‘are consistently interpreted as applying to extracontractual disputes between the contracting parties’].)” (Vaughn, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at pp. 220–221.) “Consistent[ly] with the proposition that ‘relating to’ acquires meaning from the subjects being related, the phrase normally encompasses extracontractual claims only ‘so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.’ (Berman v. Dean W

2021(See Coast Plaza, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 [“It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause, such as we have here, may extend to tort claims that may arise under or from the contractual relationship.”]; Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003 [“The phrase ‘any controversy . . . arising out of or relating to this contract . . .’ is certainly broad enough to embrace tort as well as contractual liabilities so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract.”].) In Coast Plaza,

2017(Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (1985) 473 U.S. 614 [ 87 L.Ed.2d 444 , 105 S.Ct. 3346 ]; Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 651, 660 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 113 ] [rejecting plaintiff’s contention that his wage and hour claims were exempt from arbitration merely because they were statutory]; Performance Team Freight Systems, Inc. v. Aleman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 530 ].) Labor Code violations are clearly, and indeed expressly, included as one of the types of disputes covered by the arbitration agreement.

2017(Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (1985) 473 U.S. 614 [ 87 L.Ed.2d 444 , 105 S.Ct. 3346 ]; Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 651, 660 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 113 ] [rejecting plaintiff’s contention that his wage and hour claims were exempt from arbitration merely because they were statutory]; Performance Team Freight Systems, Inc. v. Aleman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 530 ].) Labor Code violations are clearly, and indeed expressly, included as one of the types of disputes covered by the arbitration agreement.

2016(Ibid.) ‘“[T]he decision as to whether a contractual arbitration clause covers a particular dispute rests substantially on whether the clause in question is ‘broad’ or ‘narrow.’ ” (Bono, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067 .) ‘“A ‘broad’ clause includes those using language such as ‘any claim arising from or related to this agreement’ ” (ibid.) or “ ‘arising in connection with’ the agreement” (Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716, 720 (Simula)). ‘“It has long been the rule in California that a broadly worded arbitration clause . . . may extend to tort claims that may arise

2005(Wolitarsky v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 338, 347-348 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 ].) It relies on the general arbitration clause that requires arbitration of disputes concerning the terms of the agreement.

2005(Wolitarsky v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 338, 347-348 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 ].) It relies on the general arbitration clause that requires arbitration of disputes concerning the terms of the agreement.

2003Moreover, having the arbitrator interpret and decide the interrelationship of the two collective bargaining agreements is consistent with the fundamental nature of such agreements. “ ‘ “[A] collective bargaining agreement is not an ordinary contract” (John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543, 550 [ 84 S.Ct. 909, 914-915 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 ][)] and is not governed by the common law concepts that control private contracts.

2003Moreover, having the arbitrator interpret and decide the interrelationship of the two collective bargaining agreements is consistent with the fundamental nature of such agreements. “ ‘ “[A] collective bargaining agreement is not an ordinary contract” (John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543, 550 [ 84 S.Ct. 909, 914-915 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 ][)] and is not governed by the common law concepts that control private contracts.