Disneyland of Construction:  Involvement In Project Versus Involvement In Dispute Is The Issue Here

Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  Between 1980 and 2006.  Library of Congress.

     Subcontractor Pacific Westline, Inc. sued contractor C.W. Driver, alleging Driver refused to pay for additional work on a hotel at Disneyland.  Driver successfully petitioned to compel arbitration, and Pacific appealed the order granting Driver’s petition.  Pacific Westline, Inc. v. C.W. Driver, Inc., Case No. G046357 (4th Dist. Div. 3 January 9, 2013) (Bedsworth, J.) (unpublished).

     The subcontract between Pacific and Driver, which incorporated ADR procedures adopted in the “prime contract” between Disney and Driver, mandated arbitration “for disputes not involving the acts, omissions or otherwise the responsibility of [Disney].”  Thus, the requirement to arbitrate hinged on whether the dispute “involved” Disney, because if Disney was involved, then Pacific did not have to arbitrate.

      Justice Bedsworth, a wordsmith himself, noted that “involve” has several meanings.  But that was no help to Pacific, because “the burden must fall upon the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that an arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute.”  (citing Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California, 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-687).  Here, the clause could be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute.

    Besides, involvement in the project was not the key to arbitration:  “the clause speaks instead of involvement in the claim or the dispute.”  And the evidence showed only Disney’s involvement in the project, not in the dispute with Driver.

     Affirmed.