Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler
215 Cal. App. 4th 446
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Barsegian sued Kessler & Kessler, Pakravan, and 218 LLC, alleging claims including legal malpractice and fraud related to a California property purchase and subsequent lease.
- Arbitration provisions allegedly exist in the purchase agreement and lease; Kessler moved to compel arbitration under CCP 1281.2(c).
- The trial court denied arbitration due to potential inconsistent rulings between litigation with third parties and arbitration.
- Pakravan and 218 LLC did not move to compel arbitration; they indicated willingness to arbitrate at the hearing.
- Barsegian opposed arbitration on grounds of potential waiver and risk of inconsistent rulings; the court’s ruling addressed inconsistent rulings, not waiver.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that there is a possibility of inconsistent rulings with third parties and that the mutual-agency allegation is not a judicial admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP 1281.2(c) permits denying arbitration due to conflicting rulings. | Barsegian argued inconsistent rulings may arise with third parties. | Kessler argued third-party status defeated 1281.2(c) analysis | Yes; denial affirmed for potential inconsistent rulings. |
| Whether the mutual agency allegation constitutes a judicial admission. | Barsegian alleged all defendants are agents of one another. | Kessler treated as judicial admission binding all parties to arbitration. | No; not a judicial admission; not controlling for arbitration effect. |
| Whether Pakravan and 218 LLC’s willingness to arbitrate affected the outcome. | Consent from related entities would avoid inconsistencies. | Non-movants cannot bind arbitration by mere stated willingness. | No; absence of moving to compel arbitration by Pakravan/218 LLC keeps possibility of inconsistency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birl v. Heritage Care, LLC, 172 Cal.App.4th 1313 (2009) (legal standard for 1281.2(c) analysis)
- Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 735 (2009) (judicial admissions and pleadings)
- Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction, 103 Cal.App.4th 1264 (2002) (definition and effect of judicial admissions)
- Thomas v. Westlake, 204 Cal.App.4th 605 (2012) (agency principles and fair treatment)
- Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams, 40 Cal.3d 406 (1985) (agency as basis for arbitration potential)