valid arbitration clause in California

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021For example, it has been held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; accord San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party 10 requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) Other Courts of Appeal have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an arbit

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021(Titolo, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 316 [“Once the existence of a valid arbitration clause has been established,” the burden shifts to “‘the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate [the] clause cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute.’ [Citation.]”].) On this issue, “‘an order to arbitrate a particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 316-317.) We balance two overarching principles: “First, resolution

2023Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406 (Buckhorn) [same].) After considering the cases on both sides of this question, we conclude that before a court compels the parties to arbitrate, it is the moving party who must meet the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate the particular controversy at issue.

2021Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406 .) “Where, as here, the evidence is not in conflict, we review the trial court’s denial of arbitration de novo.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 .) 5 Insurers are required by law to provide coverage for bodily injury or wrongful death caused by uninsured and underinsured motorists.

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021For example, it has been held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; accord San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party 10 requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) Other Courts of Appeal have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an arbit

2023(Lindemann v. Hume (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 556, 566 [“the correct interpretation of section 1281.2, subdivision (c), like any other issue of statutory interpretation, is a question of law subject to de novo review”]; Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC, supra, 5 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1406 [“whether a defendant is in fact a third party for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), is a matter of law subject to de novo review”]; Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., at p. 484 [where sole issue on appeal is whether trial court erred in denying arbitration based

2013Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406 .) “California courts have uniformly acknowledged that there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. [Citations.]” (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1512 ; see also Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 25 [arbitration statutes “reflect a „“strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”‟”].) Consistent with this policy, any “„doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021For example, it has been held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; accord San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party 10 requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) Other Courts of Appeal have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an arbit

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021For example, it has been held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; accord San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party 10 requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) Other Courts of Appeal have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an arbit

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021For example, it has been held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; accord San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party 10 requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) Other Courts of Appeal have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an arbit

2009Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 481 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 535 P.2d 341 ]; Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 634 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) The moving party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 972 ; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2009Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 481 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 535 P.2d 341 ]; Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 634 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) The moving party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 972 ; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2009Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 481 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 535 P.2d 341 ]; Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 634 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) The moving party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 972 ; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2009Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 481 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 535 P.2d 341 ]; Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 634 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) The moving party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and the dispute is covered by the agreement. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 972 ; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2009Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ].) If the moving party meets the foregoing burden, the opposing litigant has the responsibility to prove by a *871 preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 972 ; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2009Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ].) If the moving party meets the foregoing burden, the opposing litigant has the responsibility to prove by a *871 preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 972 ; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2026Credit [Assn.] (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169, 1182 [(Riverisland)], EFD asserts that “ ‘[e]xtrinsic evidence is admissible to interpret the terms of a written settlement agreement reached in a mediation containing a valid arbitration clause.’ ” Riverisland contains no such quotation, and it does not mention settlements, mediation, or arbitration.

2023(Lindemann v. Hume (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 556, 566 [“the correct interpretation of section 1281.2, subdivision (c), like any other issue of statutory interpretation, is a question of law subject to de novo review”]; Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC, supra, 5 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1406 [“whether a defendant is in fact a third party for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), is a matter of law subject to de novo review”]; Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., at p. 484 [where sole issue on appeal is whether trial court erred in denying arbitration based

2023For example, some courts have held that “[b]efore a party may be compelled to arbitrate a claim, the petitioning party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration clause and [that] the dispute is covered by the agreement.” (Larian v. Larian (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 ; see also San Francisco Police, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [“The party requesting arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate a particular controversy.”].) 16 Other courts have placed the burden of proof on “the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an a

2021Code, § 1648 [“However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract”].) 10 On whether an agreement should compel the arbitration of particular claims, “the contractual terms themselves must be carefully examined . . . [and] [¶] . . . the terms of the specific arbitration clause under consideration must reasonably cover the dispute as to which arbitration is requested.” (Bono v. David (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063 .) “[T]he decision as to whether a contractual arbitration clause covers a particular di

2014(See, e.g., Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1985) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 [individual nonsignatory defendants acting as agents for the Rams were entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions]; Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614 [when plaintiff alleges defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, defendant may enforce the agreement even though not a party thereto]; Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (3d Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 1110 , 1121 [because a principal is bound by a valid arbitration clause, its agent, employees and representatives are also c

2014(See, e.g., Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1985) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 [individual nonsignatory defendants acting as agents for the Rams were entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions]; Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614 [when plaintiff alleges defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, defendant may enforce the agreement even though not a party thereto]; Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (3d Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 1110 , 1121 [because a principal is bound by a valid arbitration clause, its agent, employees and representatives are also c

2014(See, e.g., Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1985) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 [individual nonsignatory defendants acting as agents for the Rams were entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions]; Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614 [when plaintiff alleges defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, defendant may enforce the agreement even though not a party thereto]; Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (3d Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 1110 , 1121 [because a principal is bound by a valid arbitration clause, its agent, employees and representatives are also c

2014(See, e.g., Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1985) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 [individual nonsignatory defendants acting as agents for the Rams were entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions]; Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614 [when plaintiff alleges defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, defendant may enforce the agreement even though not a party thereto]; Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (3d Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 1110 , 1121 [because a principal is bound by a valid arbitration clause, its agent, employees and representatives are also c

2013Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406 .) “California courts have uniformly acknowledged that there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. [Citations.]” (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1512 ; see also Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 25 [arbitration statutes “reflect a „“strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”‟”].) Consistent with this policy, any “„doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor

2013Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406 .) “California courts have uniformly acknowledged that there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. [Citations.]” (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1512 ; see also Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 25 [arbitration statutes “reflect a „“strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”‟”].) Consistent with this policy, any “„doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor

2013Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406 .) “California courts have uniformly acknowledged that there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. [Citations.]” (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1512 ; see also Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 25 [arbitration statutes “reflect a „“strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”‟”].) Consistent with this policy, any “„doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor