§Why CasetextPricing

Sussex et al v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC et al

MOTION for Determination of Non-Arbitrability of Claims Against Non-Signatory Defendants

16 Cited authorities

  1. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

    460 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 11,873 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding stay order appealable under § 1291 where it put the litigant "effectively out of court," and "surrender[ed] jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court"

  2. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

    537 U.S. 79 (2002)   Cited 2,506 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compliance with a time-limit on the initiation of arbitration was not a gateway "question of arbitrability" that was reserved for the courts as it was procedural rather than substantive

  3. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.

    475 U.S. 643 (1986)   Cited 5,358 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement

  4. Steelworkers v. Warrior Gulf Co.

    363 U.S. 574 (1960)   Cited 5,542 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that grievance machinery “is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government” and the courts should not deny an order to arbitrate “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute”

  5. IN RE STAC ELECTRONICS SECURITIES LITIGATION

    89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 796 times
    Holding securities section 11 claims sounding in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b) particularity requirements

  6. Inter. Pa. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen

    206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 426 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a signatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound by a nonsignatory through the doctrine of equitable estoppel

  7. Comer v. Micor, Inc.

    436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 292 times
    Holding that a plaintiff who brought claims that were not based on agreements containing arbitration clauses did not "knowingly exploit" the agreements containing the arbitration clauses

  8. Goldman v. KPMG LLP

    173 Cal.App.4th 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 169 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff signatories were not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate under the terms of an agreement because their "allegations depend solely on the actions of [defendant nonsignatories], not on the terms of the operating agreements, for their success."

  9. Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc.

    802 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 246 times
    Holding that nonsignatory employees of a signatory broker are entitled to compel arbitration against signatory plaintiffs

  10. Tracer Research Corp. v. Nat'l Envtl. Servs. Co.

    42 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that "arising out of language" would not encompass a tort claim, which is an "independent wrong from any breach" of the contract that "does not require interpretation of the contract and is not arbitrable."

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,849 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 21,914 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  13. Section 4 - Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination

    9 U.S.C. § 4   Cited 6,320 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to federal courts to compel party to participate in arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists