Rappaport

Chelsea Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Rappaport

Good Law
3 F. Supp. 3d 791·2014 WL 998180·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37590
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2014Case No. CV 13-9449-RCalifornia947 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Real, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Richard and Laura Rappaport’s “Motion to Compel Arbitration” (“Motion”), which was filed on February 3, 2014. Chelsea Morgan Securities and John Thomas Pisapia (collectively “Chelsea”) filed an opposition on February 10, 2014 and the Rappaports filed a reply on February 18, 2014. Finding it suitable for decision on the papers, the Court took this matter under submission on February 18, 2014.

“A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Title 9 U.S.C. § 2 .

This provision reflects “both a liberal policy favoring arbitration and the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.” AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 1745, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011). “[T]he party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for…

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.