Little

Little v. Pullman

Good Law
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 74·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 717·219 Cal. App. 4th 558·2013 WL 4781601
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2013B238137California4,597 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chaney, J.

In prior proceedings, the superior court denied defendant David Pullman’s motion to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause in a, 2005 agreement. We affirmed the ruling on the ground that a later agreement between the parties, which contained no arbitration provision, superseded the 2005 agreement. (Little v. Pullman (May 19, 2011, B221565) [nonpub. opn.].) Soon after our decision was filed, Pullman ventured unilaterally to rescind the later agreement. He then moved a second time to compel arbitration under the 2005 agreement, arguing rescission of the later agreement effectively reinstated the 2005 agreement. The trial court again denied the motion.

We conclude Pullman has not perfected a rescission of the later agreement and, even if he had, unilateral rescission of that agreement would not by itself reinstate the 2005 agreement. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This litigation concerns a dispute over residual income rights once owned by the bankruptcy estate of Sherman A. Hemsley, a television and film actor popular for his portrayal of George Jefferson in the television show The Jeffersons. Residual income from…

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.