Legal Opinion
City of Hope v. Bryan Cave
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 13, 2002No. B155411PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MUNOZ, J. *
In this appeal we hold that that failure of appellants, the law firm of Bryan Cave, L.L.P., Lynn K. Thompson, a lawyer in that firm (collectively Bryan Cave), and the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Richard Ben-Veniste and Robert C. Odie, Jr., lawyers in that firm (collectively WGM), 1 to prove they were third party beneficiaries of a contract containing an arbitration clause justified denial of a request to refer the matter to arbitration. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court denying arbitration.
Factual Background Underlying the Present Lawsuit 2
Respondent…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. PrettymanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Metalclad Corp. v. Ventana Environmental Organizational PartnershipCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Benaroya v. Willis, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Bouton v. USAA Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Smith v. Microskills San Diego L.P.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- M & M Foods, Inc. v. Pacific American Fish Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.