Opinion ID: 1160537
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Correctness of the Procedures Followed Here

Text: The declarations presented by plaintiffs and GWFSC were in extensive and material conflict. The trial court, lacking adequate appellate guidance on the issue, was unsure whether its role was to resolve these factual issues or merely to determine whether the evidence presented by the plaintiff has sufficient substantiality. As discussed above, the former course was the correct one under sections 1281.2 and 1290.2. The trial court, however, appears to have chosen the latter, denying the petition, as to all but one plaintiff, on the ground plaintiffs presented sufficient evidentiary support for their allegations of fraud. To the extent, therefore, any plaintiff did produce legally sufficient evidence of fraud voiding the arbitration agreement, the trial court must determine the factual issues on remand. We turn next to the question whether any of the plaintiffs did produce such evidence.