Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Siopes v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc..

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 2013No. SCAP-12-0000361Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

ACOBA, J.

I concur in the conclusion of the majority that Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Siopes (Michael) and Lacey Siopes (Lacey) (collectively Siopeses) were not bound to arbitrate because no binding arbitration agreement existed among the Siopeses and Respondents/Defendants-Appellees Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Hawaii Per-manente Medical Group, Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (collectively, Kaiser). However, I would hold also that the Siopeses cannot be required to arbitrate because they were guaranteed the right to a *460jury trial under…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Palmer v. ValdezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  2. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Scott v. NeelySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  5. Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

17 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