Bono

Bono v. David

Good Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 1055·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 226·2007 Daily Journal DAR 2319·54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 837·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1809
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 2007A112099California5,578 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Julia Bono and Elicia W. David were two of several parties to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that contained a clause requiring mediation and arbitration of “[a]ny controversy among the parties involving the construction or application of any provision of this Agreement . . . .” The MOU was executed in 2000 by several tenants in common of Lake County property the group planned to develop. In 2005, respondent Bono brought an action for defamation against appellant David based on the contents of a 2004 e-mail David sent to a third party who was apparently attempting to resolve disputes between those two individuals concerning details of the development. David moved to compel mediation and arbitration of Bono’s defamation action pursuant to the arbitration provision of the MOU and Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 (section 1281.2). The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Bono’s defamation action was essentially “a stand-alone action” that did not involve contractual interpretation. We agree and hence affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2000, the two parties to this lawsuit, plus several others, took title as tenants in…

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.