arbitrability of any claim in California

2025(B.D. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 931 , 957–958; Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880 , 892–893; Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1123 ; Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 .) The arbitrator ruled the Operating and Purchase Agreements were so intertwined that disputes involving either one 14 were covered by the clause of the Operating Agreement requiring arbitration of disputes “arising out of or in connection with or relating to this Agreement . . . or any transaction contemplated t

2023Reference to AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules is Not Enough Subsection 14.4 of the Terms of Service specifies that for users in the United States, “any arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (the ‘AAA’) under its Commercial Arbitration Rules.” These rules, in turn, provide, “The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” (AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, R-7, subd. (a).) For it

2025(B.D. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 931 , 957–958; Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880 , 892–893; Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1123 ; Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 .) The arbitrator ruled the Operating and Purchase Agreements were so intertwined that disputes involving either one 14 were covered by the clause of the Operating Agreement requiring arbitration of disputes “arising out of or in connection with or relating to this Agreement . . . or any transaction contemplated t

2020(See, e.g., Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 1123 [concluding the parties intended to have an arbitrator determine arbitrability where their agreement incorporated the AAA’s Construction Industry Rules, which included a rule allowing the arbitrator to determine his jurisdiction, including objections to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement]; Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 [concluding the parties intended the arbitrator to decide arbitrability because the agreement incorporated the AAA Commercia

2021(Patchett v. Bergamot Station, Ltd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1397 [arbitrator could decide his own jurisdiction when the parties agreed that controversies of whatever nature in relation to the interpretation of the agreement, including the arbitrability of any claim, would be settled by arbitration].) The arbitration clause in the Releases state that all controversies arising out of or relating to the agreement, including interpretation and determination of the scope or applicability of the arbitration clause shall be determined by JAMS pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and P

2006All such Arbitrable Claims shall be settled by one arbitrator, who shall be a mutually-acceptable retired Judge of the California Superior or appellate courts.” 4 Bergamot Station asserts that the construction of the settlement agreement is a matter of law reviewed de novo by this court, citing American Home Assurance Co. v. Benowitz (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 192, 200 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 626 ].

2006All such Arbitrable Claims shall be settled by one arbitrator, who shall be a mutually-acceptable retired Judge of the California Superior or appellate courts.” 4 Bergamot Station asserts that the construction of the settlement agreement is a matter of law reviewed de novo by this court, citing American Home Assurance Co. v. Benowitz (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 192, 200 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 626 ].

2006In other words, this is a case in which the parties “ ‘have conferred upon the arbiter the unusual power of determining his own jurisdiction’ ...” (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 375 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ], quoting McCarroll v. L.

2006In other words, this is a case in which the parties “ ‘have conferred upon the arbiter the unusual power of determining his own jurisdiction’ ...” (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 375 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ], quoting McCarroll v. L.