(collectively Valenti) for general, special, and treble damages based on allegations of fraud and statutory violations of Civil Code section 1694 et seq. Jur.3d, Contracts, section 133, pages 421 to 422, discussing specialized types of contracts that must meet certain statutory standards in order to be valid (e.g., a broker's listing contract, or contracts entered into by a school board, city, or county).
Plaintiffs and respondents Elaine Duffens, Sandra Marnell, and Sandy Shaulis (collectively respondents) brought an action against Irene Valenti, Valenti International Limited, LLC and Valenti International Foundation, Inc. We may find guidance in a comparable situation described in 14 Cal.
Gilliland, San Diego, for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Although the court in Buckeye generally states that its analysis for FAA cases must be applied in both state and federal courts, this should not now be treated as an FAA case. How does this affect any right to arbitration under a different clause of the agreement? Illegality of the Contracts; No Severability of Arbitration Clause in this Context This legislation provides that a dating service contract that fails to meet these standards is void and unenforceable, but without clarifying the rules that apply to an arbitration clause within that contract or agreement.
in the individual matchmaking consulting agreements sold to them by Valenti. Rptr.2d 875, 926 P.2d 1061.) We address respondents' defenses against the enforcement of illegal contracts, and further, the public policy preferences for enforcing arbitration agreements where appropriate, such as cases in which fraudulent inducement of an agreement is alleged. These rules apply to those situations:“A statute prohibiting the making of a particular kind of a contract except in a certain manner renders such contract void if made in any other way.
Section 1694 et seq., referred to here as the dating service statutes, prescribe certain standards and language that must be included in dating service contracts. (Ibid.) We conclude that under California law, these “consulting agreements” are part of a small class of contracts regulated by specific statutes that expressly render nonconforming contracts void and unenforceable. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDRespondents individually entered into three-year “consulting agreements” (the agreements) with Valenti for matchmaking services. Where the statute prescribes the only mode by which the power to contract is to be exercised, that mode is the measure of the power.
Valenti brought a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration clause within the matchmaking consulting agreement was severable and enforceable, regardless of any potential defenses to the underlying contract liability. Proc., §§ 1281, 1281.2.) The superior court denied the motion, concluding the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was contained within an agreement that lacked essential language required by the statutory scheme, and the agreement was entered into under misleading circumstances, also a violation of statute. (a), (b).)On appeal, Valenti argues the superior court erred when it determined the agreements were illegal under California law, and that in any case, the arbitration clauses within them should have remained enforceable under state or federal law. Rptr.2d 875, 926 P.2d 1061 (Rosenthal ), the particular causes of action in the underlying complaints, for purposes of determining arbitrability of fraud allegations related to contract (fraud in the inception or execution, as opposed to fraud in the inducement). Because the agreements sued upon violated express requirements of the dating service statutes that clearly apply here, they are void and unenforceable, and their arbitration provisions are likewise not enforceable. The agreements stated that the company was not intended to be a dating service, but rather, “[i]t is a matchmaking service in the traditional sense.” In exchange for respondents' retainer fees, Valenti promised to help respondents establish “personal relationships” by analyzing their personal data and matching them with eligible persons of the opposite sex. Rptr.2d 147.) Generally, procedural state rules are not preempted by the FAA if the parties have agreed “to arbitrate in accordance with California law.” (Volt Information Sciences, Inc. A contract made otherwise than as so prescribed is not binding or obligatory as a contract, and the doctrine that there is an implied liability arising from the receipt of benefits has no application․ Under such circumstances, the express contract attempted to be made is not invalid merely by reason of some irregularity or some invalidity in the exercise of a general power to contract, but is void because the statute prescribes the only method in which a valid contract can be made.
Resolving these arguments requires us to analyze, under the standards of Rosenthal v. Each agreement contained a clause, which respondents individually initialed, that required the parties to submit disputes to arbitration. The adoption of the prescribed mode is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the exercise of the power to contract at all, and that power can be exercised in no other manner.” (Ibid., fns.omitted.)That parallel authority suggests that if a statute prescribes the only method in which a valid contract can be made, a contract that fails to follow that method is void.
The agreements further provide in two places that the retainer fees paid would be completely nonrefundable and were distributed directly toward time spent by staff psychologists in the evaluation process and personal consulting and coaching, among other things. Rptr.2d 104.) Failure to do so may be deemed a waiver of the point on appeal. Blick (1949) 33 Cal.2d 603, 610-611, 204 P.2d 23, in which the court declined to enforce an arbitration award based on a contract that was illegal due to the lack of a required license: “It seems clear that the power of the arbitrator to determine the rights of the parties is dependent upon the existence of a valid contract under which such rights might arise.
On October 13, 2006, respondents filed a complaint for damages claiming Valenti made fraudulent misrepresentations about the characteristics of the other clients to whom Valenti could introduce them. (Ibid.) It is not disputed that these agreements were entered into in California, that the arbitration clauses and related provisions provide for a forum in California, and enforceability of any arbitration award is to be determined under California law. [Citations.] In the absence of a valid contract no such rights can arise and no power can be conferred upon the arbitrator to determine such nonexistent rights.” (Id. 611, 204 P.2d 23.) We emphasize that this matter is before us solely upon a petition to compel arbitration.
Respondents alleged Valenti claimed to have a network of employees who recruited and screened high level, wealthy, single potential romantic partners throughout the United States and internationally, and Valenti promised it had such wealthy, successful persons as active clients. The agreement as a whole is stated to be governed by California law, and in some cases, a choice of forum is stated as the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, California. The trial court's order includes the statement, “[a]lso, it is alleged that the contracts were entered into under misleading circumstances.” At this point in the litigation where only arbitration issues are presented, only preliminary factual determinations can be made about whether these allegations of misleading circumstances are justified. Rptr.2d 875, 926 P.2d 1061.) Nevertheless, when we read the agreements together with the statutes, and consider these parallel authorities, we conclude that because of the particular manner in which fraud in the inducement is alleged within the context of these statutorily insufficient and illegal agreements, the agreements do not belong within the general category allowing severable arbitration clauses, because of the importance of the omitted provisions.
Respondents alleged Valenti never had any suitable matches to introduce to them and had therefore obtained their assent to the agreements through these misrepresentations. Rptr.2d 758.) Where different factual bases may exist to support a particular legal theory, it is the duty of the party asserting those facts to bring them to the attention of the trial court. Where an arbitration provision contains California choice-of-law language, the parties' intent is inferred that state law will apply for resolving motions to compel arbitration. The ruling on arbitrability does not further determine the merits of all issues about the agreements' legality under the dating service statutes. We are aware that even voidable contracts may contain enforceable arbitration clauses. Rptr.3d 422.)We cannot find the arbitration provisions in this case to be severable from these contracts under these authorities.
Respondents argued the agreements violated the dating service statutes because the services to be provided fell within the scope of the statutory scheme, but did not comply with statutory requirements. Ed.2d 917.) On appeal, we may address a newly raised issue if it involves “purely a matter of applying the law to undisputed facts.” (Brown v. “Under California law, illegal provisions may be severable if not central to the purpose of the agreement. The “taint of illegality and unconscionability cannot be removed from this arbitration agreement by severing or restricting the objectionable terms․” (Id. The dating service statutes represent the Legislature's intent to regulate in a particular manner such contracts for dating services, and the statutes operate to exclude such contracts for dating services from the scope of the general rule that a court will refrain from determining the legality of voidable contracts that contain an arbitration clause, and will instead allow an arbitrator to do so.