|
Declining to clarify an order compelling arbitration, an Arizona federal court held that all parties involved in the dispute were subject to arbitration, as the arbitration agreement expressly inured to the benefit of third parties named as defendants.
In Balezos v. Cavalry Portfolio Service, LLC, No. CV-06-1952-PHX-SMM, 2007 WL 2752383 (D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2007), Balezos moved for clarification of a court order to compel arbitration, asking the Court to clarify that the order to arbitrate did not apply to the Ewing defendants.
The Court found clarification was unnecessary, holding all parties were subject to arbitration. The Court found that the Ewing defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement between Balezos and Discover, as the agreement provided that it “will also inure to the benefit of any third party named as a co-defendant with [Discover] or with any [successors] in a claim, which is subject to this arbitration provision.” Moreover, Cavalry hired the Ewing defendants to collect the delinquent debt, and Balezos’ suit against the Ewing defendants was based on actions they took on Cavalry’s behalf.
Finally, the Court found the reasoning in Karnette v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 444 F. Supp.2d 640, 646 (E.D. Va. 2006) and Bontempo v. Wolpoff & Abramson, No. Civ.A. 06-745, 2006 WL 3040905 (W.D. Penn. Oct. 24, 2006) inapplicable, as the arbitration agreement in those cases expressly limited application to third-parties by provi12ding that it only applied if the third-parties were named as co-defendants with the original creditor.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|