HM DG, Inc. v. Amini and Beizai

Caution
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 754·219 Cal. App. 4th 1100·2013 WL 5299260
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 2013B242540California5,168 words

Opinion

Opinion

Heeseman, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and respondents HM DG, Inc., and Hassan Majd doing business as Majd Design Group (HMDG) sued defendants and appellants Farzad Etemad Amini and Pouneh Beizai (Defendants) in the superior court to recover allegedly unpaid progress payments under a construction contract for a high-end remodel of Defendants’ home. After HMDG refused Defendants’ demand to submit the dispute to arbitration, Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. The trial court denied the petition, holding that Defendants failed to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement on the ground that the “arbitration clause at issue is uncertain in that it does not specify before what agency o[r] person the matter will be arbitrated, [or] how the arbitrator will be selected, but merely sets for[th] alternative options for these terms.” The trial court also awarded HMDG its attorney fees incurred in opposing the petition to compel arbitration. We reverse.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 specifically contemplates the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement even where the “arbitration agreement…

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.