Azirian v. Ma
Filed 4/3/06 Azirian v. Ma CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| MISSAK AZIRIAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OLIVER MA, Defendant and Appellant. | B178027 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC314255) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David J. Minning, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen, Mark E. Terman and Lin M. Meyer for Defendant and Appellant.
Stegen, Sendukas & Flores, Sendukas & Stegen, Ronny Sendukas and Monti J. Stegen for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____
Defendant Oliver Ma appeals from an order denying his motion to compel arbitration of a business dispute with plaintiff Missak Azirian. Although neither Ma nor Azirian are signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration clause, Azirian maintains in essence that they are principals of the agent signatories. Under this theory, they are thus bound by the arbitration clause as a matter of agency law. And under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Azirian is estopped from repudiating arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court denying the motion to compel arbitration.
BACKGROUND[1]
In November 2001, Azirian and Ma entered into an oral joint venture agreement to produce and market sun-shielding awnings and related products under the name â€
