Edward Family v. Brown

4 Citing cases

  1. On Point Courier & Legal Servs. v. U-Haul Int'l

    Civ. 2:20-cv-00811 MIS/KRS (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2021)

    “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”:

  2. In re Gulf Exploration, LLC

    289 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2009)   Cited 132 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a stay is generally the only appropriate order for a state court with jurisdiction of all of the issues and the Texas arbitration act states an order compelling arbitration must stay the underlying litigation

    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.

  3. Khalsa v. Puri

    No. A-1-CA-36701 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2021)

    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).

  4. Cook v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

    NO. 31,419 (N.M. Ct. App. Jul. 6, 2015)

    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.