 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beaver v. Cosmetic Dermatology & Vein Centers of Downriver8/16/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Cavanagh and Owens, JJ.
Defendants appeal by leave granted from an order denying defendants' motion for summary disposition. We reverse. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying the motion for summary disposition where the matter should have been sent to arbitration. We agree. A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate where "the claim is barred because of . . . an agreement to arbitrate." MCR 2.116(C)(7). All well-pleaded factual allegations and documentary evidence are construed in plaintiff's favor. Jackson Co Hog Producers v Consumers Power Co, 234 Mich App 72, 77; 592 NW2d 112 (1999). Where no factual or legal disputes exist and reasonable minds cannot differ on the legal effects of the facts, the decision regarding whether a plaintiff's claim is barred because of an agreement to arbitrate is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Geralds v Munson Healthcare, 259 Mich App 225, 230; 673 NW2d 792 (2003). The interpretation of contractual language is an issue of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Morley v. Auto Club of Michigan, 458 Mich 459, 465; 581 NW2d 237 (1998).
In this case the arbitration agreement reads:
ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES
I hereby agree that any dispute that arises out of or that relates to employment with Cosmetic Dermatology & Vein Centers, P.C., or that arises out of or that is based on the employment relationship (including wage claim, any claim of wrongful termination, or any claim based on any employment discrimination or civil rights statute, regulation or law), shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association by filing a claim in accordance with the filing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered pursuant to such arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
Defendants argue that plaintiff's tort claims are arbitrable under this agreement. "To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties' contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt from arbitration by the terms of the contract." Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving Industries, Inc, 196 Mich App 71, 74-75; 492 NW2d 463 (1992). In this case, both plaintiff and defendants agree that there is an arbitration contract, but first dispute whether it is an applicable contract between plaintiff and defendant Friedman.
The use of arbitration "as an inexpensive and expeditious" method for resolving disputes is "strongly endorsed" by the law and public policy, and this Court will generally uphold valid arbitration agreements. Rembert v Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc, 235 Mich App 118, 127-133; 596 NW2d 208 (1999). The burden in an arbitration claim falls on the party challenging the arbitrability of a claim, and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of arbitration. Id. at 129. Nevertheless, '"a party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue which he has not agreed to submit to arbitration . . . a party cannot be required to arbitrate when it is not legally or factually a party to the agreement."' Hetrick v David A Friedman, DPM, PC, 237 Mich App 264, 267; 602 NW2d 603 (1999).
In deciding whether the agreement, naming only CDVC, is also applicable to Friedman, a nonsignatory of the agreement, this Court notes that, " onsignatories may be bound to an arbitration agreeme
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|