Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Larry D. Marquez v. William J. Koch

November 19, 2012

LARRY D. MARQUEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM J. KOCH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kline, J.:

Cite as Marquez v. Koch,

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶1} American Finco Financial Services, LLC (hereinafter "American"), Peter Kanatzar, and John Does, Representatives of American,*fn1 appeal the judgment of the Ross County Court of Common Pleas, which denied Appellants' motion to stay the proceedings. Appellants contend that the presence of arbitrable claims required the trial court to grant the motion to stay. Because a stay was required under R.C. 2711.02(B), we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

{¶2} The dispute in this case generally revolves around the purchase of a water-filtration system by Larry Marquez (hereinafter "Larry") and Ann Marquez (hereinafter "Ann"). (We will refer to Larry and Ann collectively as "Appellees.")

{¶3} Appellees allege that they entered into an agreement with Wm. Koch and Sons, Inc. (hereinafter "Koch") for the purchase and installation of a water-filtration system. In order to finance the transaction, Larry entered into a financing agreement with American. The financing agreement contained an arbitration provision. Ann did not sign the financing agreement.

{¶4} Appellees claim that Koch did not properly install the water-filtration system. As a result, Appellees filed suit against various entities and individuals,

including Appellants. Appellees assert multiple claims for relief. For purposes of this appeal, we note that Appellees allege that Appellants engaged in various unfair and deceptive trade practices.

{¶5} On October 19, 2010, Appellants moved to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. And on August 22, 2011, the trial court found (1) that Larry entered into an arbitration agreement with American and

(2) that Larry's "arbitrational agreement is enforceable only against [Appellants]."

August 22, 2011 Judgment Entry. The trial court also determined that Ann did not enter into an arbitration agreement. Moreover, the trial court ruled that Ann's claims and Larry's non-arbitrable claims were to "proceed through the normal course of scheduling in [the trial] court." Id. Thus, the trial court declined to stay the proceedings of the nonarbitrable claims pending arbitration of Larry's arbitrable claims.

{¶6} Appellants appeal and assert the following assignment of error: "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANTS' MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION."

II.

{ΒΆ7} In their sole assignment of error, Appellants argue that the trial court erred by failing to stay the proceedings pending ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.