Hartley

Hartley v. Superior Court

Good Law
127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174·196 Cal. App. 4th 1249·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 824
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2011No. D058413California4,628 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McConnell, J.

Ruth S. Hartley seeks a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court’s order compelling her to arbitrate her claims against real parties in interest. Hartley contends the court erred by finding the parties’ arbitration *1252 agreement clearly and unmistakably gives the arbitrator the exclusive authority to decide the gateway issue of unconscionability, or arbitrability. We agree, and accordingly, grant the petition and order the issuance of a writ of mandate.

BACKGROUND

In September 2009 Hartley filed a complaint for damages against Monex Deposit Company and numerous associated companies and individuals (collectively, Monex). 1 The complaint alleges Hartley is an elderly widow. Her husband, Millard Hartley (Millard), who died in 1999, had handled all their finances. Millard had opened an account with Monex, a precious metals dealer. After Millard’s death, Hartley invested with Monex, signing standard form contracts titled “Atlas Account Agreements” (hereafter account agreements), which included a “Purchase and Sale Agreement” (purchase agreement) and “Loan, Security and Storage Agreement” (loan agreement), both of which contained an arbitration clause. Hartley lost more…

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.