Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.green2 sentences2020Co. (1967) 388 U.S. 395 (Prima Paint), the Supreme Court held: “[I]f the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself−an issue which goes to the ‘making’ of the agreement to arbitrate−the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it. 2015The issue in Prima Paint, supra, 388 U.S. 395 , was “whether a claim of fraud in the inducement of the entire contract is to be resolved by the federal court, or whether the matter is to be referred to the arbitrators.” (Id. at p. 402.) The Supreme Court looked to section 4 of the FAA, which states that a court must decide for itself any issue related to “the ‘making’ of the agreement to arbitrate,” and must order arbitration upon being “satisfied that the ‘making of the agreement for arbitration . . . is not in issue.’ ” (Id. at p. 403-404; 9 U.S.C. § 4 .) The Supreme Court held that, “if the | 2 | 10 |
Duffy v. Cavaliergreen2 sentences2008The court held that the NASD Code provisions relating to arbitrator impartiality furthered the primary purposes of the SEA, and thus the California standards were preempted by the SEA. ( Jevne, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 958-960.) [11] If, however, the party is asserting fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause specifically, the assertion is to be resolved by the trial court, as it goes to the validity of the arbitration clause itself. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 960, 973; Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 419 .) [12] The scope of a fiduciary's 2008The court held that the NASD Code provisions relating to arbitrator impartiality furthered the primary purposes of the SEA, and thus the California standards were preempted by the SEA. ( Jevne, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 958-960.) [11] If, however, the party is asserting fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause specifically, the assertion is to be resolved by the trial court, as it goes to the validity of the arbitration clause itself. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 960, 973; Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 419 .) [12] The scope of a fiduciary's | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co.green2 sentences2008(See Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362, 367 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 157 ].) [14] On remand, should the trial court determine, in resolving the motion to compel arbitration, that the Agreement is void for fraud in the execution, this determination would not foreclose a jury trial on the Browns' causes of action regarding Wells Fargo's allegedly improper sale of the Sav-On stock. [1] Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., "[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject a 2008(See Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362, 367 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 157 ].) [14] On remand, should the trial court determine, in resolving the motion to compel arbitration, that the Agreement is void for fraud in the execution, this determination would not foreclose a jury trial on the Browns' causes of action regarding Wells Fargo's allegedly improper sale of the Sav-On stock. [1] Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., "[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject a | 1 | 1 |
Hayes Children Leasing Co. v. NCR Corp.green2 sentences1996Thus, claims of fraud in the execution of the entire contract (because they would show the contract to be void) and claims of fraud in the execution or the inducement of the arbitration clause itself (because they are directed at the arbitration clause), must be decided by the court in the first instance before it can compel arbitration. ( Prima Paint v. *Page 432 Flood Conklin (1967) 388 U.S. 395 , 403-404 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1270, 1277-1278 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ]; Hayes Children Leasing Co . v. NCR Corp . (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 775 , 783-784 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 ] .) By contrast, a claim that a contract 1996Thus, claims of fraud in the execution of the entire contract (because they would show the contract to be void) and claims of fraud in the execution or the inducement of the arbitration clause itself (because they are directed at the arbitration clause), must be decided by the court in the first instance before it can compel arbitration. ( Prima Paint v. *Page 432 Flood Conklin (1967) 388 U.S. 395 , 403-404 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1270, 1277-1278 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ]; Hayes Children Leasing Co . v. NCR Corp . (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 775 , 783-784 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 ] .) By contrast, a claim that a contract | 1 | 1 |
King v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.green2 sentences1993The cases however appear to involve no more than situations in which “experienced, knowledgeable parties signed a contract under the mistaken belief that it merely repeated the terms to which they had earlier agreed.” (King v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 749, 756 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 214 ]; Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Center of Los Angeles (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1416-1417 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 895 ].) 4 A11 further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 5 In light of our decision, we do not address two additional issues raised 1993The cases however appear to involve no more than situations in which “experienced, knowledgeable parties signed a contract under the mistaken belief that it merely repeated the terms to which they had earlier agreed.” (King v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 749, 756 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 214 ]; Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Center of Los Angeles (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1416-1417 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 895 ].) 4 A11 further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 5 In light of our decision, we do not address two additional issues raised | 1 | 1 |
Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Centergreen2 sentences1993The cases however appear to involve no more than situations in which “experienced, knowledgeable parties signed a contract under the mistaken belief that it merely repeated the terms to which they had earlier agreed.” (King v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 749, 756 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 214 ]; Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Center of Los Angeles (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1416-1417 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 895 ].) 4 A11 further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 5 In light of our decision, we do not address two additional issues raised 1993The cases however appear to involve no more than situations in which “experienced, knowledgeable parties signed a contract under the mistaken belief that it merely repeated the terms to which they had earlier agreed.” (King v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 749, 756 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 214 ]; Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Center of Los Angeles (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1416-1417 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 895 ].) 4 A11 further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 5 In light of our decision, we do not address two additional issues raised | 1 | 1 |
Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc.green2 sentences1977The Prima Paint court held (pp. 403-404 [18 L.Ed.2d, P. 1277]) that “consistent both with the decision in Moseley v. Electronic Facilities [supra] 374 U.S. 167, 171, 172 [ 83 S.Ct. 1815, 1817, 1818 , 10 L.Ed.2d 818 ] (1963), and with the statutory scheme,” “if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself—an issue which goes to the ‘making’ of the agreement to arbitrate—the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it.” Concluding that the claimed fraud did not affect the arbitration clause, but instead the inducement of the contract generally, i.e., the acceleration of i 1977The Prima Paint court held (pp. 403-404 [18 L.Ed.2d, P. 1277]) that “consistent both with the decision in Moseley v. Electronic Facilities [supra] 374 U.S. 167, 171, 172 [ 83 S.Ct. 1815, 1817, 1818 , 10 L.Ed.2d 818 ] (1963), and with the statutory scheme,” “if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself—an issue which goes to the ‘making’ of the agreement to arbitrate—the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it.” Concluding that the claimed fraud did not affect the arbitration clause, but instead the inducement of the contract generally, i.e., the acceleration of i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.
green
2 sentences2022But the statutory language does not permit the federal court to consider claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract generally.” (Id. at pp. 403-404, fn. omitted.) Based on Prima Paint, the defendants in Rosenthal argued that a challenge to the formation of the parties’ agreement was arbitrable unless it constituted “an ‘independent’ or ‘separate and distinct’ challenge to the arbitration clause itself.” ( Rosenthal, supra, at p. 415 .) The court rejected this argument, concluding that “claims of fraud in the execution of the entire agreement are not arbitrable under either state or fede 2008The court held that the NASD Code provisions relating to arbitrator impartiality furthered the primary purposes of the SEA, and thus the California standards were preempted by the SEA. ( Jevne, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 958-960.) [11] If, however, the party is asserting fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause specifically, the assertion is to be resolved by the trial court, as it goes to the validity of the arbitration clause itself. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 960, 973; Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 419 .) [12] The scope of a fiduciary's | 2 | 2008–2022 |
Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street
green
2 sentences1996Thus, claims of fraud in the execution of the entire contract (because they would show the contract to be void) and claims of fraud in the execution or the inducement of the arbitration clause itself (because they are directed at the arbitration clause), must be decided by the court in the first instance before it can compel arbitration. ( Prima Paint v. *Page 432 Flood Conklin (1967) 388 U.S. 395 , 403-404 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1270, 1277-1278 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ]; Hayes Children Leasing Co . v. NCR Corp . (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 775 , 783-784 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 ] .) By contrast, a claim that a contract 1996Thus, claims of fraud in the execution of the entire contract (because they would show the contract to be void) and claims of fraud in the execution or the inducement of the arbitration clause itself (because they are directed at the arbitration clause), must be decided by the court in the first instance before it can compel arbitration. ( Prima Paint v. *Page 432 Flood Conklin (1967) 388 U.S. 395 , 403-404 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1270, 1277-1278 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ]; Hayes Children Leasing Co . v. NCR Corp . (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 775 , 783-784 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 ] .) By contrast, a claim that a contract | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C. v. Howard
green
2 sentences2020(Ibid.) The Court in Rent-A-Center also noted that, if in Prima Paint “the claim had been ‘fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself,’ then the court would have considered it.” (Rent-A- Center, at p. 71.) Further, in Nitro-Lift Technologies, supra, 568 U.S. 17 , employees alleged in court noncompetition agreements were “null and void” under a state statute that limited the enforceability of noncompetition agreements. 2020(Ibid.) The Court in Rent-A-Center also noted that, if in Prima Paint “the claim had been ‘fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself,’ then the court would have considered it.” (Rent-A- Center, at p. 71.) Further, in Nitro-Lift Technologies, supra, 568 U.S. 17 , employees alleged in court noncompetition agreements were “null and void” under a state statute that limited the enforceability of noncompetition agreements. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
green
2 sentences2008(Id. at pp. 403-404.) However, the party could be compelled to arbitrate a claim of “fraud in the inducement of the contract generally.” (Id. at p. 404.) Recently, in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (2006) 546 U.S. 440 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 ] (Buckeye), the Supreme Court held that *1284 Prima Paint applies to void as well as voidable contracts. 2008(Id. at pp. 403-404.) However, the party could be compelled to arbitrate a claim of “fraud in the inducement of the contract generally.” (Id. at p. 404.) Recently, in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (2006) 546 U.S. 440 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 ] (Buckeye), the Supreme Court held that *1284 Prima Paint applies to void as well as voidable contracts. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC
green
1 sentence2008(See Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362, 367 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 157 ].) [14] On remand, should the trial court determine, in resolving the motion to compel arbitration, that the Agreement is void for fraud in the execution, this determination would not foreclose a jury trial on the Browns' causes of action regarding Wells Fargo's allegedly improper sale of the Sav-On stock. [1] Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., "[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject a | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Robert Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Devonshire Fabrics, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986Indeed, no claim is made that Prima Paint ever intended that ‘legal’ issues relating to the contract be excluded from arbitration, or that it was not entirely free so to contract.” (Id., at p. 406 [18 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1278-1279], italics added.) In Devonshire, supra, 271 F.2d 402 , plaintiff sought damages for the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by Devonshire inducing it to purchase and pay for a quantity of woolen fabric. 1986Indeed, no claim is made that Prima Paint ever intended that ‘legal’ issues relating to the contract be excluded from arbitration, or that it was not entirely free so to contract.” (Id., at p. 406 [18 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1278-1279], italics added.) In Devonshire, supra, 271 F.2d 402 , plaintiff sought damages for the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by Devonshire inducing it to purchase and pay for a quantity of woolen fabric. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.