“As a general rule, an arbitration clause is only binding on the parties to the underlying agreement and not on third parties.” Edward Family L.P. v. Brown, 140 P.3d 525, 530 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). However, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has recognized the existence of an exception “based on principles of equitable estoppel”:
2006); Dan Wiebold Ford, Inc. v. Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., 142 Idaho 235, 127 P.3d 138, 141 (2005); Am. Gen. Home Equity, Inc. v. Kestel, 253 S.W.3d 543, 547 n. 2 (K.y. 2008); Commonwealth v. Philip Morris Inc., 448 Mass. 836, 864 N.E.2d 505, 511 (2007); Banks v. City Fin. Co., 825 So.2d 642, 647-48 (Miss. 2002); State ex rel. Bruning v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 275 Neb. 310, 746 N.W.2d 672, 678 (2008); Edward Family Ltd. v. Brown, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525, 529 (Ct.App. 2006); Ass'n of Unit Owners of Bridgeview Condos. v. Dunning, 187 Or.App. 595, 69 P.3d 788, 801 (2003); Powell v. Cannon, 179 P.3d 799, 806-7 (Utah 2008); Scherer v. Schuler Custom Homes Constr., Inc., 98 P.3d 159, 162 (Wyo. 2004). We too have adopted this rule: "Courts may review an order compelling arbitration if the order also dismisses the underlying litigation so it is final rather than interlocutory.
Because the parties are not signatories to the ELA, we agree that the arbitration provision within the ELA does not apply to the present dispute. See Edward Family Ltd. P'shlp v. Brown, 2006-NMCA-083, ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525 ("As a general rule, an arbitration clause is only binding on the parties to the underlying agreement and not on third parties."); cf. In re: Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., 951 F.3d 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding that the defendants could not compel arbitration under a limited warranty associated with their goods because "the parties did not form an agreement to arbitrate" when the plaintiffs were "distributors" of those goods and "not 'original retail purchasers' [covered by] the terms of the arbitration provision" of the limited warranty).
"An order referring issues to arbitration is a final, appealable order if it is the last deliberative action of the court with respect to the controversy before it." Edward Family Ltd. P'ship v. Brown, 2006-NMCA-083, ¶ 8, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast,
{5} "An order referring issues to arbitration is a final, appealable order if it is the last deliberative action of the court with respect to the controversy before it." Edward Family Ltd. P'ship v. Brown, 2006-NMCA-083, ¶ 8, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast,
{26} We review the district court's ruling on motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award for an abuse of discretion. SeeEdward Family Ltd. P'ship v. Brown , 2006-NMCA-083, ¶ 17, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525 ("We review the district court's order confirming the arbitration award and denying the motion to vacate for abuse of discretion."). Similarly, "[w]e review the denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion."
The denial of a motion to vacate is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. Edward Family Ltd. Partnership v. Brown, 2006-NMCA-083, ¶ 17, 140 N.M. 104, 140 P.3d 525. An abuse of discretion occurs through application of the incorrect standard or substantive law, reliance on clearly erroneous fact finding, or application of correct legal standards in an incorrect manner.