Updated on December 23, 2021
In this two-part blog post, we discuss two recent decisions in California that provide real-world examples and further explain the law in the area of arbitration clauses in real estate disputes.
In previous post, we discussed the Court of Appeal’s decision stating that arbitration clauses in residential lease agreements are invalid when applying California state law on the grounds that the clauses violate state public policy.
In this blog post, we will look at Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, in which the Court of Appeal analyzed an arbitration clause contained in a real estate purchase and sales contract.
California law provides judges the discretion to decline to compel arbitration under certain circumstances provided under Section 1281.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Among them, subsection c of Section 1281.2 provides that if there are other defendants in the lawsuit not bound by the arbitration agreement and the applicable law agreed to in the arbitration agreement, the parties may end up with “conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.”
In Victrola 89, LLC, this was the very provision that the trial court cited in denying the defendants’ motion to compel. The trial court found that “because the other defendants named in Victrola’s complaint had not agreed to arbitrate, there was ‘a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact regarding the [Defendants’] liability ….”
By contrast, federal law favors arbitration proceedings, even if it will potentially result in inconsistent decisions. Thus, the choice of law was important for the defendants in this case, who wanted to arbitrate the dispute.
At Schorr Law, our real estate lawyers in Los Angeles is experienced in resolving real estate disputes and routinely handles litigation in court and arbitration settings. To inquire about your matter, please contact us today at or at (310) 954-1877.