Blum Collins v. Cooper CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 2024B324759California2,378 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

A. The Parties’ Agreement The parties’ arbitration agreement is contained in a January 22, 2019 letter from Cooper, on behalf of Acuity, to Steve A. Blum and Craig M. Collins of Blum Collins, which is countersigned by Blum and Collins, regarding “Woolsey Fire Catastrophe . . . Proposal for Risk Management & Insurance Consulting Services” (the letter agreement). (Boldface omitted.) The letter agreement provides that it “shall serve to memorialize our discussions of agreeable terms and conditions for risk management and insurance consulting services to be provided by Acuity . . . in and for the captioned matter.” The parties apparently agreed on a $25,000 retainer deposit for “reasonable and necessary out of pocket expenditures.”2 An addendum to the letter, entitled “proposal for risk management [and] insurance consulting services,” identifies

1 The record reflects that Acuity is Cooper’s fictitious business name, and thus not a separate legal entity. (See Pinkerton’s, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1348 [“[u]se of a fictitious business name does not create a separate legal entity”].) Therefore, Cooper is the sole appellant. 2 No…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.