Source: https://ads1.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=B281761&s=CA&d=114389
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:17:20+00:00

Document:
against Benaroya, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement.
confirm the award only as to Benaroya.
of the contract by Willis.
question for the trial court alone.
had not produced financial documents in response to a subpoena.
again in their post-hearing closing brief.
Benaroya’s alter ego) were liable.
usurped the authority of the court and was legally unsupportable.
question resides, by law, solely with the trial court.
question of law subject to de novo review. [Citation.]” (Daniels v.
arbitrate and which no statute has made arbitrable.”]; Goldman v.
not examine the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award.
written construction contract that contained an arbitration clause.
moved to stay the proceedings to obtain judicial review of the order.
arbitration clause was sufficient to bind the plaintiff to arbitration.
arbitrator rather than by a court of competent jurisdiction.” (Id. at p.
make a critical difference to a party resisting arbitration.” (Id. at p.
contract to which he was not a party.
and, if that was unsuccessful, commence arbitration proceedings.
defendants were jointly and severally liable.
intent to delegate such issues to an arbitrator.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p.
compelled to arbitrate. (See Greenspan, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p.
grievances fall outside the clause’s scope”]; Dream Theater, Inc. v.
nonsignatory should be bound by an arbitration agreement]; Boucher v.
to compel nonsignatory to arbitration made by court]; cf. Mormile v.
agreement, did not agree to delegate any issues to the arbitrator.
them.” (First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 946; see Ikerd v. Warren T.
failure to do so was mere harmless error.
as to Benaroya. Appellant is entitled to costs on appeal.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.