- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Arbitration
- Date Filed: 11-23-2022
- Case #: A176014
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, P.J. for the Court; Egan, J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendants appealed and assigned error to the trial court’s denial of their petition to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims. ORS 36.625(1) provides: “On petition of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person’s refusal to arbitrate under the agreement: (b) If the refusing party opposes the petition, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.” The Court found that the trial court erred in denying the petition to compel arbitration for two reasons. First, the trial court’s conclusion that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because the parties did not designate an arbitrator was incorrect. If the parties to an arbitration agreement have not determined a method for appointing an arbitrator, “the court, on the petition of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator.” ORS 36.645(1). Second, the trial court found that because Defendant was not a signatory to the contract, the arbitration provision was unenforceable against him, which would split the action. The Court found that the provision applied to the non-signatory because the claim was identical to the claim under the arbitration provision. As a result of the broad text, it is likely that the parties intended the arbitration provision to apply to any claims that the plaintiff might have arising from or relating to the agreement, which is the case here. Livingston v. Metro Pediatrics, LLC., 234 Or App 137, 147, 227 P3d 796 (2010). Thus, the Court held that because the arbitration provision was enforceable “the court shall… order the parties to arbitrate….” ORS 36.625(1)(b). Reversed and remanded.