Valencia

Valencia v. Smyth

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180·185 Cal. App. 4th 153·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 789
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 2010B216753California10,512 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mallano, J.

The California Association of Realtors publishes and periodically revises a standard form residential purchase agreement commonly used in California. The agreement contains an arbitration provision. We previously interpreted the October 2000 version of the agreement, concluding that, under the California Arbitration Act (CAA) (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1280-1294.2), the trial court had the authority to stay or deny arbitration where (1) some of the parties to the action were not parties to the agreement, and (2) proceedings in different forums—arbitral and judicial—could result in conflicting rulings on a common issue of fact or law. (Gravillis v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 761, 782-783 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 ] (Gravillis), construing Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c).)

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 ) does not permit a trial court to stay or deny arbitration in those circumstances. Rather, the FAA requires the arbitration of all claims within the scope of an arbitration provision even if the action includes nonarbitrable claims by or against third parties. (See 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4.)

In accordance with choice-of-law…

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.