Fuentes v. TMCSF, Inc., No. E066242 (Aug. 23, 2018)
Plaintiff bought a Harley. He brought a CLRA/UCL/FAL class action against the Dealer for various misrepresentations in its sales practices. His sales contract does not have an arb clause. But his finance agreement does. Although Plaintiff didn’t sue the bank, Dealer tries to enforce the arbitration rights in that agreement anyway. But none of the theories that permit a non-party to compel arbitration apply. The Court here goes through incorporation, agency, third party beneficiary, and estoppel. But there’s also alter ego, which apparently is not an issue here. So the trial court correctly denied Dealer’s motion to compel arbitration.
Affirmed.
Accord The Wild Angels.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment