Lindemann

Lindemann v. Hume

Good Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 597·204 Cal. App. 4th 556
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 2012No. B226106; No. B233273California6,291 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Perluss, J.

—These appeals follow the denial of motions to compel arbitration in a multiparty action arising out of the purchase of a newly built home. The trial court denied the seller parties’ motion to compel arbitration of the buyer’s causes of action for nondisclosure because there was a possibility of conflicting rulings if these claims were ordered to arbitration and the nonarbitrable causes of action by the buyer against the developer parties proceeded to trial. The court later denied the seller parties’ motions to compel their agents to arbitrate the agents’ cross-claims for indemnification on the ground the agents were not bound to submit those claims to arbitration by the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Parties and Principal Actors

Richard Hume is a trustee of the Hancock Park Real Estate Trust (Hancock Park Trust); Nicolas Cage is the trust’s beneficiary. 2 In November 2001 Cage *559 agreed to purchase a home being built by developer The Lee Group on Ocean Front Walk in Venice. Cage’s advisors at the time included former business manager Samuel J. Levin, who became a cotrustee of the Hancock Park Trust…

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.