Court Opinion

ID: 9937779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:01:58.927866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:15.942999
License: Public Domain

I must respectfully dissent. The main opinion concludes that arbitration cannot be compelled, because, it concludes, the arbitration clause is not broad enough to cover a dispute involving an intentional tort. I disagree. The arbitration clause reads: "Any controversy or claim arising between the parties, including, but not limited to, disputes relating to this [a]greement, shall be resolved by binding arbitration. . . ." (Emphasis added.) I believe the clause is broad enough to include a dispute that does not directly relate to the parties' contract for the supply of groceries. Given the extraordinary nature of a writ of mandamus, I would hold that the trial judge had a rational basis for granting the motion to compel arbitration. Therefore, I would deny the petition for the writ of mandamus.