Mathewson v. BDO Seidman
Filed 4/5/06 Mathewson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| ERIC MATHEWSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BDO SEIDMAN, et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A109708 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 04-434495) |
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 an arbitration provision contained in a contract between BDO and plaintiff Eric Mathewson. The issue is whether Mathewson and BDO are parties to an enforceable arbitration agreement. We conclude they are, and we reverse. We also conclude the arbitration provision's terms prohibiting punitive damages and shifting costs and fees are unenforceable and are severable. We further conclude Mathewson's 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]
During the time relevant to this action, Mathewson was the CEO and owner of Prescient Capital L.L.C. (Prescient), an investment advisory firm.[2] Mathewson has â€
