Liu v. Barrelet

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Blaise Barrelet’s motion for reconsideration of the order compelling arbitration. The court held that Barrelet had failed or refused to arbitrate claims related to the purchase agreement and that the arbitration provision remained valid for those claims, despite California law precluding arbitration of tenancy-related claims. The court directed the Clerk to close the case and ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration before a mutually agreeable arbitrator.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was unwarranted because Barrelet's motion largely reasserted arguments made in opposition to the original motion to compel and did not identify newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
2. Barrelet failed or refused to arbitrate because his counsel rejected the arbitration demand, objected to JAMS and the proposed locations, and did not propose an alternative neutral or agree to remote arbitration after Liu offered flexibility.
3. A valid written arbitration agreement covered Liu's claims related to the Purchase Agreement. California Civil Code § 1953(a)(4), as interpreted by the state courts, voided arbitration of tenancy-related claims but did not invalidate arbitration of Liu's Purchase Agreement claims.
4. The prior order did not require the parties to arbitrate specifically before JAMS. The parties were required to arbitrate claims related to the Purchase Agreement and to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable arbitrator.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Barrelet's motion for reconsideration satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether Barrelet's refusal to proceed with the proposed arbitration demonstrated a failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate under 9 U.S.C. § 4.
3. Whether a valid written arbitration agreement covered Liu's claims concerning the Purchase Agreement despite California Civil Code § 1953(a)(4) and the relationship between the Purchase Agreement and the Lease.
4. Whether the prior order compelling arbitration required the parties to proceed specifically before JAMS.

Disposition

other