NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: PETITION 7 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO SELECT AN ARBITRATOR [PETR] JEFF KING & COMPANY, INC
RULING
Petitioner’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2) The court compels binding arbitration of the dispute before an arbitrator agreed to by the parties, or in the absence of agreement, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.6, as outlined below.
Discussion Upon a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 12812, the court must determine whether a duty to arbitrate the particular controversy has arisen between the parties. (United Transportation Union v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist, (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 804, 808.) The court is required to examine and, to a limited extent, construe the underlying agreement pursuant to general principles of contract law. (State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1301; (Vic
Hearing Date
October 23, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: PETITION 7 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO SELECT AN ARBITRATOR [PETR] JEFF KING & COMPANY, INC
RULING
Petitioner’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2) The court compels binding arbitration of the dispute before an arbitrator agreed to by the parties, or in the absence of agreement, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.6, as outlined below.
Discussion Upon a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 12812, the court must determine whether a duty to arbitrate the particular controversy has arisen between the parties. (United Transportation Union v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist, (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 804, 808.) The court is required to examine and, to a limited extent, construe the underlying agreement pursuant to general principles of contract law. (State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1301; (Vic