Source: http://mauralarkins.com/insurancebrokerlawsuitSF.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:40:08+00:00

Document:
clean up the school insurance industry?
ignorant of the truth of the allegations.
s top Bay Area executives.
business for public entity clients.
in the first amended complaint.
in part and denied in part in June 2005.
duty and Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.
the arbitration clause was executed.
which to order the People to arbitration.
claims were not arbitrable under Cruz v.
30 Cal.4th 303, 320 (Cruz).
compelled SFUSD to arbitrate its claims.
under which it was entered. (Jones v.
are identical in all material respects.
enforce a contract made for its benefit.
contracting parties intent to benefit it.
arbitration of any controversy . . .
which was created by the contract.
[Citations.] (Bos Material Handling, Inc.
benefit must bear the burden.
to the JPAs under the JPA Agreements.
or Civil Code section 1589 in this case.
estoppel. (See Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v.
the absence of conflicting evidence.
govern the formation of contracts.
effect to the mutual intent of the parties.
or after the signing of this Agreement) .
arbitration under the Claims Agreement.
entitled to their costs on appeal.
business for public entity clients."
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No.
published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
be stayed pending completion of arbitration.
Agreement contains an arbitration provision.
Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.
and Marsh USA, Inc. (collectively, Marsh).
resolution of SFUSD's nonarbitrable claims.
brought its motion to compel arbitration.
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
introduced in the trial court." (Brookwood v.
1667, 1670; see NORCAL Mutual Ins. Co. v.
(Metalclad); Inglewood Teachers Assn. v.
we apply de novo review. (van't Rood v.
that involve interstate or foreign commerce.
see also Allied-Bruce Terminex Cos. v.
federal law. (See Volt Info. Sciences v.
unless otherwise noted. (See Rosenthal v.
14 Cal.4th 394, 406-407; Abramson v.
alternative to the judicial process. [Citation].
parties have chosen to arbitrate them.
is not bound by an arbitration agreement.
Estate Investment Brokerage Co., Inc.
Cal.App.4th at p. 245; see also Grundstad v.
supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at pp. 242-243; E.I.
Contra Costa, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p.
enforce a contract made for its benefit. (Civ.
to demand enforcement.' [Citation.]" (Hess v.
the sole remedy available to both parties.
1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed.
either of those circumstances applies here.
third-party beneficiary." (InterGen N.V. v.
compel SFUSD to arbitrate its claims.
773-775 [unlicensed broker]; Kenworthy v.
status is a matter of contract interpretation.
right to pursue its claims in a judicial forum.
of Contra Costa, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p.
243.) That is not the case here.
their employers. (Id. at p. 243; Madden v.
by the team, petitioned to compel arbitration.
bound to join the arbitration. (Id. at pp.
Boys Club is obviously distinguishable.
relationship between the JPA's and SFUSD.
employees to arbitration. (Id. at pp.
.)" (Metalclad, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p.
(Metalclad, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p.
1714; see MS Dealer, supra, 177 F.3d at p.
with the underlying contract obligations.
complying with its arbitration provision . . . ."
owed directly from Keenan to SFUSD,"
Civil Code section 1589 in this case.
that requires a finding of a "direct benefit"
to arbitrate its claims against Keenan.
in this appeal. (Sanchez v. Truck Ins.
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (see Gov.
liabilities, or obligations of the agency."
motion for summary judgment. (Id. at pp.
of the constituent entities as alter egos. (Id.
signatories. We decline to do so here.
claims and submitted to arbitration.
U.S.C. § 3) and California law (Code Civ.
litigation pending completion of arbitration.
in fashioning a legislative response"
include agreements to arbitrate" (id. at p.
1281.2(c) in Cronus Investments, Inc. v.
York.' '' (Mastrobuono, supra, 514 U.S. at p.
clause itself resolved in favor of arbitration."
limiting the authority of arbitrators. . . .' (Id.
arbitrators. (Cronus, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p.
conflicting rulings in this multiparty action.
legal inquiry for the court. (See Prouty v.
supra, 269 F.3d at p. 197; Chacksfield v. L.
entitled to its costs on appeal.
We concur: Ruvolo, P.J., Rivera, J.
Government Code section 6500 et seq.
we consider this related argument on appeal.
agreement between Nor Cal and SFUSD.
the complaints that are before us.
the direction of David D.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 3
 v.

 v.

 v.