 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ratcliff v. Whitacre11/15/2004
ded an order compelling them to submit to arbitration. (Id. at pp. 241-246.) It does not stand for the converse proposition, as plaintiffs claim, i.e., that the existence of any business relationship between or among parties to litigation can justify compelling a party who did not sign an arbitration agreement to submit to arbitration.
Plaintiffs also contend that there is a "vendor-purchaser" relationship between themselves and "the various defendants." However, they do not explain why their status as purchasers of the services provided by Inland Valley and their status as purchasers of the services provided by Dr. Glaser and Temecula Valley leads to the conclusion that Inland Valley should be bound by their arbitration agreement with Temecula Valley.
Plaintiffs also claim that because Debbie Ratcliff is an employee of Inland Valley, the arbitration agreement had "roots" in that relationship. Vianna v. Doctors' Management Co., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 1186, on which plaintiffs rely, is completely inapposite. In that case, the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, sued the company and three individual defendants for wrongful termination and related claims, all of which arose from, or had "roots" in, the employment relationship. The plaintiff's written employment contract included a clause which provided for arbitration of any dispute regarding the "meaning, interpretation or enforcement" of the contract. The Court of Appeal held that because all of the plaintiff's claims involved duties which arose out of the employment relationship created by the contract, either expressly or by operation of law, the arbitration clause applied, and the defendants were entitled to compel arbitration. (Id. at pp. 1188-1190.) In contrast, the Ratcliffs' claims do not arise out of Debbie Ratcliff's employment with Inland Valley, but rather from her unrelated agreement with Temecula Valley.
Thus, plaintiffs have failed to provide any authority which permits the conclusion that the relationship between Dr. Glaser and Temecula Valley and Inland Valley falls among any of the limited exceptions to the rule that a party to a lawsuit may not be compelled to arbitrate a dispute unless arbitration is mandated by statute or the party has agreed to submit the claim to arbitration. (County of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at pp. 244-245.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying plaintiffs' petition to compel arbitration is affirmed. Defendants shall recover their costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
Ramirez, P. J.
King, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|