Labor & Employment Law Blog

One issue that often arises in litigation over arbitration agreements is “Who gets to decide if the agreement to arbitrate is valid?” This is usually a “gateway issue” for the courts to decide under both the federal and California arbitration statutes. However, sometimes the parties specifically agree that the arbitrator can decide issues of contract validity and enforceability, in order to ensure that their entire dispute is resolved in arbitration.

On June 1, 2010, the California Court of Appeal refused to enforce an arbitration agreement to require the arbitration of claims asserted against third parties who did not agree to arbitration. In Valencia v. Smyth, purchasers of real property sued their agent, the property owners and the owners’ broker and listing agent, and three additional parties (two title companies and the trustee of the deed of trust) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and other claims arising out of the alleged misappropriation of the purchasers’ escrow funds.  The owners attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement entered into with the buyers in which they agreed to arbitrate “any dispute or claim in Law or Equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction,” which neither the title companies nor the trustee were parties to. The trial court had refused to enforce the agreement, and required that all parties be joined in a consolidated judicial proceeding, because the claims against the third parties arose out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there was a “possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.”