Fair v. Bakhtiari 10/12/04 CA1/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2005 » Fair v. Bakhtiari 10/12/04 CA1/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A100240A

Case Date: 01/12/2005

Preview:Filed 10/12/04 (opn. on rehearing)

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO R. THOMAS FAIR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KARL E. BAKHTIARI et al., Defendants and Respondents. STONESFAIR FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. R. THOMAS FAIR, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant. Plaintiff R. Thomas Fair appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to compel arbitration. The motion was based on an arbitration clause in a document that was signed at the conclusion of mediation by plaintiff and defendants Karl E. Bakhtiari (Bakhtiari) and Maryann E. Fair (Maryann Fair), as well as by defendants Stonesfair Financial Corporation (SFC), Stonesfair Management Company, LLC (SMC), and Stonesfair Corporation (SC) (collectively Stonesfair entities). Plaintiff contends this document A100240 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 417058)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of footnote 5 (at pp. 6-7), the second paragraph of part I (at p. 7) and footnote 6 (at pp. 7-8), and part III (at pp. 11-16). 1

*

constitutes a valid, admissible settlement agreement between the parties and the trial court erred in ruling to the contrary. We find the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration because (1) the settlement agreement satisfies a statutory exception to the inadmissibility of written or oral communications made during mediation, and (2) the settlement agreement contains a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate all disputes. We therefore shall reverse. BACKGROUND On March 6, 2002, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint against defendants.1 The complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract against Bakhtiari, SFC and SC; breach of fiduciary duty against Bakhtiari and Maryann Fair; corporate waste against Bakhtiari and Maryann Fair; assault against Bakhtiari; battery against Bakhtiari; wrongful and retaliatory termination in violation of public policy against Bakhtiari and SFC; wrongful termination against Bakhtiari and SFC; intentional infliction of emotional distress against Bakhtiari and Maryann Fair; unfair business practices against Bakhtiari, Maryann Fair and SMC; interference with economic relations against all defendants; conversion against Bakhtiari, Maryann Fair and SMC; fraud against Bakhtiari, Maryann Fair and SFC; and constructive fraud against Bakhtiari and Maryann Fair. On March 20, 2002, SFC filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets (Civ. Code,

Download Fair v. Bakhtiari 10/12/04 CA1/2.pdf