Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Exline

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 31, 2007No. A116463PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NEEDHAM, J.

Louis Exline, John Trahan, and Initiatek, Inc., appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration under a contractual provision for binding arbitration. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in deciding that individual defendants, who were not signatories to a contract containing an arbitration provision but were sued as alter egos of a corporate defendant who was a signatory, may not compel another signatory party to arbitrate the controversies raised in the complaint. We agree with appellants and reverse the order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respond…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  3. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.California Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge ServicesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. Sanchez v. City of FresnoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2012
  4. Jsm Tuscany, LLC v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Young Seok Suh v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API