From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watts v. Sonic Automotive

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jun 4, 2014
2014-MO-015 (S.C. Jun. 4, 2014)

Opinion

2014-MO-015

06-04-2014

Christine Watts, Respondent, v. Sonic Automotive, d/b/a Century BMW, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2013-000606

Kurt M. Rozelsky, of Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, of Greenville, Richmond T. Moore and Dennis M. Black, both of Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gedney M. Howe, III, of Gedney M. Howe, III, PA, of Charleston, Richard A. Harpootlian, of Richard A. Harpootlian, PA, of Columbia, A. Camden Lewis, of Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, LLP, of Columbia and Brady R. Thomas, Terry E. Richardson, Jr. and David Butler, of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &Brickman, LLC, all of Barnwell, and Michael E. Spears, of Michael E. Spears, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard May 6, 2014

Appeal from Greenville County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Kurt M. Rozelsky, of Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, of Greenville, Richmond T. Moore and Dennis M. Black, both of Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Gedney M. Howe, III, of Gedney M. Howe, III, PA, of Charleston, Richard A. Harpootlian, of Richard A. Harpootlian, PA, of Columbia, A. Camden Lewis, of Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, LLP, of Columbia and Brady R. Thomas, Terry E. Richardson, Jr. and David Butler, of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &Brickman, LLC, all of Barnwell, and Michael E. Spears, of Michael E. Spears, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This case concerns the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to compel arbitration. We affirm.

In 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Appellant for the purchase of a car. The transaction included the execution of an arbitration agreement. In December 2006, Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement. At the time of its motion to compel arbitration, Appellant agreed the matter would be decided pursuant to state law. After this Court decided Herron v. Century BMW (Herron I), 387 S.C. 525, 693 S.E.2d 394 (2010), the United States Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010), and AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011). For the reasons set forth in Herron v. Century BMW (Herron II), 395 S.C. 461, 719 S.E.2d 640 (2012), cert denied, 132 S.Ct. 2436 (2012), this Court declined to review its Herron I decision. We are constrained by Herron II, which similarly forecloses Appellant's efforts in this appeal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the above-referenced decisions of this Court.

Respondent's father was also involved in the purchase of the vehicle.

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., Acting Justices James E. Moore and Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., concur.


Summaries of

Watts v. Sonic Automotive

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jun 4, 2014
2014-MO-015 (S.C. Jun. 4, 2014)
Case details for

Watts v. Sonic Automotive

Case Details

Full title:Christine Watts, Respondent, v. Sonic Automotive, d/b/a Century BMW…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 4, 2014

Citations

2014-MO-015 (S.C. Jun. 4, 2014)