Court Opinion

ID: 9780288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 01:46:00.254197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:01.678640
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellants Marshall, Amaya & Anton, etc., *999et al.’s, motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in an Employment Agreement, the validity and enforceability of which the appellants simultaneously challenge. The case law supports the appellants’ argument that unless there is a challenge to the arbitration provision which is separate and distinct from any challenge to the underlying contract, the case should be submitted to arbitration. See Teledyne, Inc. v. Kone Corp., 892 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 895, 402-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967)). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to order arbitration.
RAMIREZ and EMAS, JJ., concur.