Cobb

Cobb v. Ironwood Country Club

Good Law
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 282·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 78·233 Cal. App. 4th 960
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2015G050446California3,074 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

— Ironwood Country Club (Ironwood or the Club) appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of the declaratory relief action brought by plaintiffs William S. Cobb, Jr., and Elizabeth Richards, who are former members of Ironwood, and Patrick J. Keeley and Helen Riedstra, who are current members. The motion to compel was based on an arbitration provision Ironwood incorporated into its bylaws four months after plaintiffs’ complaint was filed. Ironwood argues (1) that its new arbitration provision was fully applicable to this previously filed lawsuit because the lawsuit concerned a dispute which was “ongoing” between the parties, and (2) that its right to amend its bylaws meant that any such amendment would be binding on both current and former members.

The trial court disagreed, reasoning that Ironwood’s subsequent amendment of its bylaws was insufficient to demonstrate that any of these plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate this dispute, and that if Ironwood’s basic premise were accepted, it would render the agreement illusory. We agree with both conclusions and affirm the order.

When one party to a contract retains the unilateral right to amend the 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.