Laymon V. J. Rockcliff, Inc. – An Arbitration Clause Reminder

"California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration," and therefore, courts generally enforce arbitration clauses unless it is clear that the language of the clause does not cover the asserted dispute. (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) The California Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed this policy on June 9, 2017, in Laymon v. J. Rockcliff, Inc.,  2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 536. In Laymon, the court held that the arbitration clauses in question could be read to reasonably include plaintiffs' allegations against real estate brokers, thereby requiring plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.

Two sets of plaintiffs brought two materially identical class action lawsuits against their real estate brokers (the "broker defendants") and a group of services providers (the "service provider defendants") (collectively, the "defendants"). The plaintiffs alleged that the broker defendants breached their fiduciary duties while