Legal Opinion

HM DG, Inc. v. Amini and Beizai

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 20, 2013No. B242540PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HEESEMAN, J. * —

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and respondents HM DG, Inc., and Hassan Majd doing business as Majd Design Group (HMDG) sued defendants and appellants Farzad Etemad Amini and Pouneh Beizai (Defendants) in the superior court to recover allegedly unpaid progress payments under a construction contract for a high-end remodel of Defendants’ home. After HMDG refused Defendants’ demand to submit the dispute to arbitration, Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. The trial court denied the petition, holding that…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
  3. People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Day v. City of FontanaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  5. International Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co.California Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
  2. Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Pacific Corporate Group Holdings v. KeckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Cruise v. Kroger Co.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Anthony v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.,L.L.C.District Court, E.D. California · 2025

9 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