Arbitration/Enforceability/Homeowners: California Supreme Court’s Decision In Pinnacle Requires Reversal In Another Case Of Order Denying Developer’s Motion To Compel Arbitration

     On August 16, 2012, we blogged about the California Supreme Court’s decision (actually, a majority, concurrences, and a dissent) in Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (2012).  That case held that covenants, conditions and restrictions of a recorded declaration created by a developer, which contain an arbitration clause, will be honored and enforced to compel arbitration as long as they are not proven to be unreasonable.

      That Supreme Court holding compelled the Second District, Division 1, in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Association v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc., Case No. BC225086 (2nd Dist. Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2012) (Mallano, J) (unpublished) to vacate its prior decision in the Promenade case affirming an order denying the developer’s motion to compel arbitration.  On remand, the trial court is to enter a new order granting the developer’s motion to compel arbitration.