Cowan v. BDO Seidman
Filed 4/5/06 Cowan v. BDO Seidman CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| NATHALIE R. COWAN AND DAVID J. COWAN, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BDO SEIDMAN, et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A107681 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 04-428936) |
BDO Seidman, LLP and Francois Hechinger (collectively, BDO) timely appeal from an order denying BDO's motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration under arbitration provisions contained in three contracts between BDO and plaintiffs Nathalie R. Cowan and David J. Cowan (the Cowans). The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the arbitration provisions are unconscionable and against public policy. The issue is whether the Cowans and BDO are parties to enforceable arbitration agreements. We conclude they are, and we reverse. We also conclude the arbitration provisions' terms prohibiting punitive damages and shifting costs and fees are unenforceable and are severable. We further conclude the Cowans' claim seeking injunctive relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. is not arbitrable and should be stayed pending arbitration.
BACKGROUND[1]
David Cowan is a general partner of a private venture capital firm in Menlo Park. He admits he is a â€
