Hume Street Management etc. v. Beverly Hills Acquisition CA2/8

DISCUSSION

“Federal and California law treat valid arbitration agreements like any other contract and favor their enforcement.” (Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, 492.) Because arbitration is a matter of contract, “[t]he general rule is that one must be a party to an arbitration agreement either to be bound by or to invoke it.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1122, 1128 (Ford).) There is, however, no policy compelling parties to accept arbitration of controversies they have not agreed to arbitrate. (Ibid.; Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744.) “ ‘Given that arbitration agreements are simply contracts, “ ‘[t]he first principle that underscores all of our arbitration decisions’ is that ‘[a]rbitration is strictly a matter of consent.’ ” [Citations.] Arbitration is “a way to resolve those disputes—but only those disputes—that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.” [Citation.] Consequently, the first question in any arbitration dispute must be: What have these parties agreed to?’ ” (Ford, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1129, quoting Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (2024) 602 U.S. 143, 148.) Here, as in Ford, the answer is…