Legal Opinion

Lindemann v. Hume

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 21, 2012No. B226106; No. B233273PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERLUSS, P. J.

—These appeals follow the denial of motions to compel arbitration in a multiparty action arising out of the purchase of a newly built home. The trial court denied the seller parties’ motion to compel arbitration of the buyer’s causes of action for nondisclosure because there was a possibility of conflicting rulings if these claims were ordered to arbitration and the nonarbitrable causes of action by the buyer against the developer parties proceeded to trial. The court later denied the seller parties’ motions to compel their agents to arbitrate the agents’ cross-claims for…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Shamblin v. BrattainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bunker Hill Park Ltd. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. Eagan Avenatti, LLP v. Parrish CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Tobin v. Hilton Worldwide CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API