Pless

Efund Capital Partners v. Pless

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 1311·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 781·59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5588
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2007B193575California7,778 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, Robert Pless, Frank Mayor, David Allegra, Janice Doyle, and AIM Group, LLC (AIM), appeal from an August 28, 2006 order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration explicitly relying on two decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—Tracer Research v. Nat. Environ. Services Co. (9th Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 1292 , 1294—1295, and Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1458 , 1461-1464—which now constitute a distinctly minority analysis. We conclude that under California law, as well as the views of all of the circuits which have considered the arbitrability issue at hand, that the motion to compel arbitration should have been granted. Thus, we reverse the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. But the trial court did not rule on plaintiff EFund Capital Partners’s waiver and standing contentions. We accede to the parties’ request that, upon issuance of the remittitur, the trial court is to rule on plaintiff waiver and standing contentions.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Second Amended Complaint

This is in part a shareholder derivative suit. Plaintiff sues on…

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.