DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2024-01438066·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoVacated

Moore vs. Panutich

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
Jun 18, 2026
Department
C44
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMoore
DefendantPanutich

Ruling

Even if there was not a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the arbitration agreement is enforceable by the Moving Defendants.

“Where a nonsignatory seeks to enforce an arbitration clause, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies in two circumstances: (1) when a signatory must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory or the claims are ‘intimately founded in and intertwined with’ the underlying contract [citations omitted] and (2) when the signatory alleges substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by the nonsignatory and another signatory and ‘the allegations of interdependent misconduct [are] founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement.’” (Kramer v.

Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F.3d 1122, 1128- 29 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Goldman v. KPMG LLP, 173 Cal.App.4th 209; Cohen v. TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 840, 863; NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Related World Market Center, LLC (Del. 2007) 922 A.2d 417, 433, fn. 35.)

Here, Moving Defendants have standing to enforce the arbitration agreement because they are alleged to be agents of the signatory Ponder – his attorneys. The claims asserted against Moving Defendants are “intimately founded in and intertwined” with the Settlement Agreement as the claims relate to their representation of Ponder and the claims covered by the Settlement Agreement. Thus, arbitration of these claims is required regardless of whether the question of arbitrability is delegated to the arbitrator.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and the action shall be STAYED pending the completion of arbitration.

An ADR Review Hearing is set for March 5, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C44.

Clerk to give notice.

6 Moore vs. Panutich

2024-01438066 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Vacated. See minute order dated 6/16/26. 7 Parkhill vs. Salt Creek Grille OC

2025-01510859 Demurrer to Complaint

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share