The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered judgment against defendant moving company in plaintiff property owners’ complaint seeking damages for injury to their property as a result of a fire. The moving company appealed. The parties designed class action lawyers as their respective experts during discovery. During pretrial civil discovery the parties retained class action lawyers as their experts during the first designation.

Overview

The owners’ household furnishings and effects were destroyed fire while in the possession of the moving company. A judgment was entered in the owners’ favor. On appeal, the moving company claimed that the evidence did not support the findings. The court held (1) that the moving company had not sustained its burden of proving that the goods were not lost because of negligence and the resulting findings that the moving company breached its contract and was negligent in the care of the owners’ goods was supported sufficient the evidence, (2) that expert testimony was properly admitted because it was based on the expert’s observations of the fire and direct evidence was later introduced in support of most of the facts not personally observed them, (3) that the owners agreed to the declared value of their property retaining the warehouse receipt and forwarding their acceptance to defendant and the judgment improperly exceeded that amount, and (4) the owners’ motion to dismiss the appeal was properly denied because the order denying the motion to dismiss the appeal became final before the decision on the merits the district court.

Outcome

The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied. The judgment in favor of the owners and against the moving company was modified reducing the amount of the judgment to the value of the destroyed goods as stated in the warehouse receipt. As so modified the judgment was affirmed.

Procedural Posture

A corporate plaintiff sued two corporate defendants. Both defendants moved for an order staying the action and compelling arbitration. The Santa Clara County Superior Court, California, denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Both defendants appealed.

Overview

Plaintiff was in a contractual relationship with the first defendant, but plaintiff had no express contractual relationship with the second defendant. The court concluded that plaintiff could not avoid arbitrating its claims against the first defendant, which was the signatory defendant, because each claim fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Plaintiff could not avoid arbitrating its claims against the second defendant, which was the nonsignatory defendant, because those claims were inextricably bound up with the obligations arising out of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. The doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to all of plaintiff’s claims against the second defendant, whether framed in tort, contract, or equity. Each was subject to arbitration because it derived from, relied on, or was intimately intertwined with the subject contract containing the arbitration agreement. Because the equitable estoppel doctrine applied, the second defendant had a right to enforce the arbitration agreement. The second defendant’s presence as a party to the litigation provided no basis for avoiding arbitration under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.

Outcome

The order was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new and different order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.