Barsegian

Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 567·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 287·215 Cal. App. 4th 446·2013 WL 1680181
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 15, 2013B237044California2,422 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rothschild, J.

Gohar Barsegian filed suit against attorney Warren J. Kessler and the law firm of Kessler & Kessler (collectively the Kessler defendants), Danny Pakravan, and 218 LLC, a limited liability company of which Pakravan was the sole member. The Kessler defendants moved to compel arbitration, but the remaining defendants did not. The trial court denied the motion to compel on grounds of waiver and the possibility of inconsistent rulings resulting from litigation with third parties, namely, Pakravan, 218 LLC, and Bahrain Newman. The Kessler defendants appeal. We affirm on the basis of the possibility of inconsistent rulings resulting from litigation with third parties, and we therefore do not reach the issue of waiver.

In support of their argument for reversal, the Kessler defendants argue that because Barsegian’s operative first amended complaint alleges that all defendants are agents of one another, that allegation is a binding judicial admission that gives Pakravan, 218 LLC, and Newman the right to enforce the arbitration agreement between Barsegian and the Kessler defendants. On that basis, the Kessler defendants conclude that Pakravan, 218 LLC, and Newman are not “third…

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.