Hillsborough LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Invest.
Filed 8/30/06 Hillsborough LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Invest. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| HILLSBOROUGH LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT BROKERAGE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. | E038589 (Super.Ct.No. RCV85860) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. J. Michael Gunn, Judge. Affirmed.
Cooper, White & Cooper LLP, William H.G. Norman, John M. Ross, and Patrick M. Rosvall, for Defendants and Appellants.
Irell & Manella LLP, Gregory R. Smith, Alana Hoffman; Arnold J. Rothlisberger for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1. Introduction
Defendant and appellant Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Company (broker) appeals after the trial court denied the broker's petition to compel arbitration in the action below. We affirm.
Plaintiff and respondent, Hillsborough, LLC (seller), owned three parcels of real estate, which it was interested in selling. One parcel was improved with a senior assisted-living facility, one parcel had a senior apartment complex constructed on it, and one parcel was vacant.
On or about February 11, 2004, the broker submitted a form â€
