Marquez v. Koch
2012 Ohio 5466
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Larry and Ann Marquez purchased and financed a water-filtration system; financing included an arbitration clause (Ann did not sign).
- Koch installed the system; the Marquezes alleged improper installation and various unfair/deceptive practices by several defendants, including Appellants.
- On Oct. 19, 2010 Appellants moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings; trial court later held Larry’s arbitration agreement is enforceable only against Appellants and dismissed stay for Ann’s claims.
- Ann’s claims and Larry’s non-arbitrable claims were to proceed in the trial court; no stay was entered pending arbitration.
- Appellants appealed arguing the court should have stayed the entire action pending arbitration of Larry’s arbitrable claims.
- The appellate court held RC 2711.02(B) mandates a stay when any issue is referable to arbitration and some claims are arbitrable, regardless of non-arbitrable claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a stay pending arbitration | Marquez argues the entire case should be stayed because Larry’s arbitrable claims are referable to arbitration. | Appellants contend the presence of non-arbitrable claims does not negate a mandatory stay for arbitrable issues. | Stay required; judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- K.M.P., Inc. v. Ohio Historical Soc., 2003-Ohio-4443 (4th Dist. No. 03CA2 (Ohio 2003)) (stay/pending arbitration standard; mandatory language)
- Cheney v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2005-Ohio-3283 (10th Dist. (Ohio 2005)) (public policy favoring arbitration; RC 2711.02(B))
- Murray v. David Moore Builders, Inc., 2008-Ohio-2960 (9th Dist. (Ohio 2008)) (arbitration stay despite non-arbitrable claims)
- Slusher v. Ohio Valley Propane Servs., 2008-Ohio-41 (4th Dist. (Ohio 2008)) (not a case where all arbitrable claims are derivative of non-arbitrable claims)
- Krafcik v. USA Energy Consultants, Inc., 107 Ohio App.3d 59 (8th Dist. (Ohio 1995)) (mandatory nature of stay under RC 2711.02)
- Hussein v. Hafner & Shugarman Ents., Inc., 2008-Ohio-1791 (6th Dist. (Ohio 2008)) (arbitration when action involves both arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims)
- BSA Invests., Inc. v. DePalma, 2007-Ohio-4059 (8th Dist. (Ohio 2007)) (stay when arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims coexist)