Court Opinion

ID: 9640093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:57:05.297539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:26.297471
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In their motion for rehearing, appellants argue that only those appellants who are alleged to have actually uttered the statements that we have held to be not subject to arbitration should be required to participate in the litigation arising from those statements. In his petition, Finstad claims that appellant Haines was responsible for making the statements that he was a “disgusting loser,” and was “running a chain of black hookers out of his office.” Appellant Shea allegedly repeated these statements. Fin-stad also alleges that appellant Haines is responsible for calling him “unethical” and claiming that he “probably got weekly shots for every disease known to man.”
Appellants argue that only appellants Haines and Shea should be required to litigate Finstad’s claims that are based on these statements, and that the remaining appellants should be allowed to arbitrate the claims. We disagree. In our opinion, we held that the above-referenced claims do not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement because they do not arise out of or relate to Finstad’s employment. The fact that some of the appellants are not alleged to have actually uttered the statements does not bring the statements within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The statements are simply not arbitrable as to anyone.
If the remaining appellants contend that they are not responsible for the statements allegedly made by appellants Haines and Shea, the proper remedy is to seek a summary judgment in the litigation. Arbitration is not appropriate under the terms of the arbitration agreements.
We OVERRULE appellants’ motion for rehearing.