Meinnert

Meinnert v. Christine Karnofsky Landscape Design

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 27, 20232:21-cv-01435California2,771 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDREW MEINNERT, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01435-MCE-DB Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHRISTINE KARNOFSKY

LANDSCAPE DESIGN,

15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Andrew Meinnert and Stacey Elmore (“Plaintiffs”), individually and as Parents and Next Friends of their minor children, filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration against Defendant Christine Karnofsky (“Defendant”), the owner of Christine Karnofsky Landscape Design. ECF No. 1. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 6, which has been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 6-1 (“Pls.’ Mem.”), 8 (“Def.’s Opp’n”), 9 (“Pls.’ Reply”). Should the Court grant their Motion, Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees and costs related to the arbitration. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.1 /// 27 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. …

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.