Court Opinion

ID: 9935825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:56:47.4768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:28.687931
License: Public Domain

While I concur in part II.B., I respectfully dissent from part II.A. Both Hobbs and Simses are suing Oakwood Acceptance on the ground that it has been harassing them and threatening collection and repossession while it is a mere stranger to their respective contracts. Oakwood Acceptance claims that arbitrators should decide the issue of Oakwood Acceptance's standing to enforce the arbitration agreements because they provide that "[a]ny challenges to the validity or enforceability of this Agreement shall be determined by the arbitrator(s)." The standing of a party, however, is distinct from the validity or the enforceability of the agreement.
Oakwood Acceptance introduced no evidentiary material whatsoever before the trial court to establish that Oakwood Acceptance was either a party to or an assignee of any contract with either Hobbs or Simses. Under Oakwood Acceptance's interpretation of the quoted sentence, any stranger to an arbitration agreement containing such a sentence — literally, any stranger in the world — would have a right to require that an arbitrator decide whether the stranger to the contract is a party to the contract.