Goldman v. KPMG LLP

12 Citing briefs

  1. Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al

    Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to

    Filed February 9, 2015

    at 541 (emphasis omitted); see also Kramer, 705 F.3d at 1132-33; Murphy, 724 F.3d at 1231-32. 46 Goldman, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 553. 47 Id.

  2. Meyer v. Kalanick

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 91 MOTION to Compel Arbitration ., 80 MOTION to Compel Arbitration . . Document

    Filed June 29, 2016

    The theory prevents a contracting party from, “on the one hand, seek[ing] to hold the non-signatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny[ing the] arbitration’s applicability because the defendant is a non-signatory.” Goldman, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 543 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a plaintiff from, in effect, trying to have his Case 1:15-cv-09796-JSR Document 102 Filed 06/29/16 Page 45 of 52 35 cake and eat it too; that is, from relying on the contract when it works to his advantage by establishing the claim, and repudiating it when it works to his disadvantage by requiring arbitration.”

  3. Meyer v. Kalanick

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 40 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 37 Memorandum & Opinion,, . . Document

    Filed April 21, 2016

    Plaintiff’s price- fixing claims do not seek to hold Defendant “liable pursuant to duties imposed by the [User] [A]greement,” nor are those claims “dependent upon, or founded in and inextricably intertwined with, the underlying contractual obligations of the [User] [A]greement.” Goldman, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 528, 543, 540. And “allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by signatories and nonsignatories, standing alone, are not enough.”

  4. Meyer v. Kalanick

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss The First Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed February 18, 2016

    This element requires a showing that Plaintiff’s claims are “dependent upon, or inextricably bound up with, the obligations imposed by the contract.” Goldman, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 550. Defendant’s equitable estoppel argument fails because Plaintiff’s price-fixing claim does not depend on any obligation in the User Agreement.

  5. Kiehn et al v. Stein et al

    REPLY

    Filed April 3, 2013

    “In other words, a signatory to an agreement with an arbitration clause cannot ‘have it both ways.’” Goldman v. KPMG, LLP, 173 Cal. App. 4th 209, 220; 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534 (2009). Otherwise, a signatory plaintiff could avoid the practical consequences of an arbitration agreement simply by naming nonsignatory parties as defendants in its H IL L, F A R R E R & B U R R IL L LL P A L IM IT E D L IA B IL IT Y P A R T N E R S H IP A T TO R N E Y S A T LA W O N E C A LI FO R N IA P LA Z A , 3 7T H F LO O R 30 0 S O U T H G R A N D A V E N U E LO S A N G E LE S , C A LI FO R N IA 9 00 71 -3 14 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 8 - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT complaint and “the effect of the rule requiring arbitration would, in effect, be nullified.”

  6. Kiehn et al v. Stein et al

    MOTION to Compel ARBITRATION AND DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR STAY ACTION; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT [CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 29

    Filed March 14, 2013

    25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page - ii - CASES Amisil Holdings, Ltd. v. Clarium Capital Mgmt. LLC, 622 F. Supp. 2d 825 (N.D. Cal. 2007)................................................................11 Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................13 Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)..............................................................................5 Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006)........................................................................9, 11 Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) .........................................................................................4, 5 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates, 269 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2001) .................................................................................9 Goldman v. KPMG LLP, 173 Cal. App. 4th 209 (2009).......................................................................11, 12 Jones v. Jacobson, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2011).................................................................................11 Marchese v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 734 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................................................................6 Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 586 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1978) ..............................................................................13 Mitsubishi Motors Corp., v. Soler-Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) .............................................................................................7 Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr.

  7. Setty et al v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 6, 2018

    Id. at 1129 (quoting Goldman, 173 Cal. App. 4th at 218). Here, SS Bangalore did not even sign the Partnership Deed, so its claims cannot arise from the Partnership Deed.

  8. Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE to Hirease's 32 Joinder in MOTION to Compel

    Filed March 5, 2015

    Contrary to Hirease’s argument, Plaintiff’s allegations against it under the MCRA are not “‘intimately founded in and intertwined’ with” any “underlying contract obligations” asserted by Plaintiff. (Joinder at 9 (quoting Goldman, 173 Cal. App. 4th at 216).) Rather, as summarized above, Plaintiff alleges that Hirease is independently liable for its own failure to deliver a copy of its report concerning Plaintiff to him, as required under the MCRA.

  9. Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al

    MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof

    Filed January 9, 2015

    Equitable estoppel applies in two circumstances: (1) when the “plaintiff relies on the terms of an agreement to assert his or her claims against a nonsignatory defendant,” or the plaintiff’s “causes of action against the nonsignatory are ‘intimately founded in and intertwined’ with the underlying contract obligations,” id. at 706, 716; or (2) when the complaint alleges “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” that is “founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement,” Goldman v. KPMG LLP, 173 Cal. App. 4th 209, 219 (2009). See also Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., 724 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that, under California law, equitable estoppel applies “‘(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, 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.

  10. Simpson et al v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Memorandum in Opposition re Motion to Compel

    Filed January 31, 2012

    Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 173 L. Ed. 2d 832, 839-40 (2009). Case4:11-cv-05376-SBA Document31 Filed01/31/12 Page17 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14PLAINTIFFS’ MPA IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION 65499 Similarly, in Goldman v. KPMG, LLP, 173 Cal. App. 4th 209, 218-19 (2009), arbitration was denied because Plaintiffs’ claims against the nonsignatories were “unrelated to any of the obligations in the operating agreements…. The complaints do not rely on or use any terms or obligations of the operating agreements as a foundation for their claims.