Trial Court Order Denying Defendants' Petition To Arbitrate Is Affirmed.
This case was about a matter of timing. Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging defendants failed to build and develop a Web site as agreed to. Defendants move to compel arbitration. The trial court found defendants failed to show that the arbitration clause related to the contract plaintiffs said was the basis for their claims. Defendants appealed. Noor v. Katz, B275176 (2/2 9/19/17) (Ashmann-Gerst, Chavez, Goodman) (unpublished).
Defendants claimed the the dispute arose from a September 10, 2015 agreement containing an arbitration provision. Plaintiffs argued the dispute arose in connection with an earlier July 13, 2015 invoice that did not have an arbitration provision. The Court of Appeal, in affirming the trial court's order denying arbitration, agreed defendants simply failed to meet their burden of showing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate the dispute.
Regarding the standard of review of an order denying a petition to compel arbitration, the Court notes:
There is no uniform standard of review for evaluating an order denying a motion to compel arbitration . . . . If the court's order is based on a decision of fact, then we adopt a substantial evidence standard. . . . Alternatively, if the court's dnial rests solely on a decision of law, then a de novo standard of review is employed . . . ." (quoting Robertson v. Health Net of California, Inc., 132 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425 (2005)).
Comments