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.
Showing posts with label nonparties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonparties. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Monday, September 17, 2018
Big Mess on Due Process and CDA
Hassell v. Bird, No. S235968 (Cal. July 2, 2018)
Like me, the California Supreme Court found this 2016 opinion problematic. It granted review and now issues one of the more fractured opinions I've seen from the Court in recent years.
Like me, the California Supreme Court found this 2016 opinion problematic. It granted review and now issues one of the more fractured opinions I've seen from the Court in recent years.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
This Would Make Me Yelp!
Hassell v. Bird, No. A143233 (D1d4 Jun. 7, 2016)
Wow. Back-to-back Yelp defamation cases. It must be a cottage industry or something. And while I might have had a few quibbles with some of the intermediate steps in the analysis on the last one, this one really manages to go off the rails.
Wow. Back-to-back Yelp defamation cases. It must be a cottage industry or something. And while I might have had a few quibbles with some of the intermediate steps in the analysis on the last one, this one really manages to go off the rails.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Don't Be the Go-To Guy on ERISA
UCFW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health, No. A143399 (D1d5 Oct. 27, 2015)
A union ERISA trust sued a healthcare provider for antitrust violations, alleging that the provider enters anti-competitive agreements with insurance networks that have the effect of driving up the cost of healthcare. The provider moved to compel arbitration, even though the trust isn’t a party to any contract with the network that contains an arbitration clause. The provider argued that the trust was nonetheless bound to arbitrate because (1) a provision in state healthcare law bound the trust to a different agreement between the the provider and the insurance network that had contracted with the trust; (2) the trust was equitably estopped; and (3) the network was the trust’s agent. The trial court denied the motion and the court here affirms.
I don’t do ERISA law, so on the first issue, it will have to suffice to say that after a lengthy discussion, the court held that the provider’s interpretation of the healthcare statutes was wrong: The network was not bound to the provider/network contract.
As for equitable estoppel, that rule requires plaintiff to arbitrate when, although it is not a party to a contract, its claims are so intertwined with the contract that plaintiff is effectively trying to enforce some of its terms. Because its not fair to let plaintiff pick and chose what parts of the contract to enforce, the arbitration clause can be enforced against plaintiff even though it’s not a signatory. But that’s not the case here, since the whole point of plaintiff’s claim is that the provider/insurance network contract is illegal. Given that allegation, fairness does not require the trust to stand on the contract’s terms and accept arbitration.
And as to agency, the facts showed that, at best, the trust used some of the insurance network’s processing forms. That hardly made the network an agent of the trust.
Affirmed.
A union ERISA trust sued a healthcare provider for antitrust violations, alleging that the provider enters anti-competitive agreements with insurance networks that have the effect of driving up the cost of healthcare. The provider moved to compel arbitration, even though the trust isn’t a party to any contract with the network that contains an arbitration clause. The provider argued that the trust was nonetheless bound to arbitrate because (1) a provision in state healthcare law bound the trust to a different agreement between the the provider and the insurance network that had contracted with the trust; (2) the trust was equitably estopped; and (3) the network was the trust’s agent. The trial court denied the motion and the court here affirms.
I don’t do ERISA law, so on the first issue, it will have to suffice to say that after a lengthy discussion, the court held that the provider’s interpretation of the healthcare statutes was wrong: The network was not bound to the provider/network contract.
As for equitable estoppel, that rule requires plaintiff to arbitrate when, although it is not a party to a contract, its claims are so intertwined with the contract that plaintiff is effectively trying to enforce some of its terms. Because its not fair to let plaintiff pick and chose what parts of the contract to enforce, the arbitration clause can be enforced against plaintiff even though it’s not a signatory. But that’s not the case here, since the whole point of plaintiff’s claim is that the provider/insurance network contract is illegal. Given that allegation, fairness does not require the trust to stand on the contract’s terms and accept arbitration.
And as to agency, the facts showed that, at best, the trust used some of the insurance network’s processing forms. That hardly made the network an agent of the trust.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)