Delegation Of Threshold Issue To Arbitrator Must Be Unmistakably Clear.

        Mahram used Instacart to purchase groceries and later sued Ralphs (The Kroger Co.) for allegedly raising prices after applying a coupon, claiming violations under false advertising and unfair competition laws. Ralphs moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement between Mahram and Instacart, even though Ralphs was not a signatory to that contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Ralphs' motion to compel arbitration. Payam Mahram v. The Kroger Co., B324405 (2/8  8/19/24) (Wiley, J.).

        While Mahram did enter into an arbitration agreement with Instacart by signing up for its services, the agreement only applied to disputes between Mahram and Instacart.

        Whether Ralphs could compel arbitration was for the court to decide, not an arbitrator, because the contract did not make it "unmistakably clear" that Mahram agreed to arbitrate with any party other than Instacart.

        And Ralphs was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Mahram and Instacart, because the contract's purpose was to facilitate grocery deliveries, not to benefit Ralphs specifically.

        In sum, Ralphs could not enforce the arbitration agreement between Mahram and Instacart, and the trial court's denial of Ralphs' motion to compel arbitration was affirmed.