A Judge By Any Other Name Decides The Case the Same Way? Don’t Count On It

Dave Reif has this interesting discussion of two federal judges in California construing the same arbitration provision differently within weeks of one another, resulting in conflicting rulings on motions to compel arbitration. As Dave explains, in Nation v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246435 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2020) and Robinson v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246785 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2020), “[t]he two cases, which interpret the same arbitration clause contained in the standard form purchase agreement for a BMW but emphasize different parts thereof, come out diametrically opposed on the issue of whether the manufacturer is a third-party beneficiary of the buyers’ agreement with the dealer and, therefore, may compel arbitration thereunder.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s