Arbitration News

Plaintiff Tucker Is Before Another Appeal On A Lawsuit Brought In San Mateo County Against A Different Wireless Telephone Service Provider

(Tucker v. Cingular Wireless, A106671 [challenging rates].) We apply the same reasoning here as in that related appeal and conclude that plaintiff Tucker cannot be compelled to arbitrate. By statute, an order compelling arbitration is warranted when “an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists” and “a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The fundamental assumption of arbitration is that the parties have consented to resolving their disputes outside the judicial process. The strong policy favoring arbitration as a means of resolving disputes does not extend to persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement and have not elected to submit to arbitration. (County of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 237, 244-245; accord Benasra v. Marciano (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 987, 990.) A proceeding to compel arbitration is essentially a suit in equity for specific performance of an arbitration agreement. A court in equity has no power to compel third party nonsignatories to arbitrate absent some implied authority by the signatory to bind the nonsignatory. (47 Cal.App.4th at pp. 242-245; see also Marcus & Millichap Real 4 At the time of the proceedings below, section 17204 of the Business and Professions Code provided in relevant part: “Actions for any relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or any district attorney or any [authorized] county counsel . . . or any [qualified] city attorney . . . or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204, italics added.) While this appeal was pending, on November 2, 2004, the electorate amended the UCL by Proposition 64 to delete the provision for a private attorney general. (2004 West’s Cal. Legis. Service, Prop. 64.) We find it unnecessary to examine the effect of Proposition 64 upon the present appeal. Whether Diane Tucker is entitled to pursue her claims under the UCL is not an issue that is cognizable on AT&T’s petition to compel arbitration. AT&T’s assertions that Diane Tucker now lacks standing and that her claims should be entirely dismissed may be raised in the trial court by an appropriate motion.
</P2>

Contact our Utah Arbitration Lawyer Now!

	Did You Know?
	Courts enforce agreements to arbitrate. When people sign an agreement providing for arbitration, one side cannot decide later on that it would rather litigate. Unless both parties agree that they do not want to arbitrate, a court will enforce the arbitration agreement by compelling the unwilling party to arbitrate and precluding the party from continuing court litigation.