A federal court in California recently granted Ringside Development Company’s motion to stay a franchisee-initiated lawsuit pending resolution through alternative dispute resolution. Jameson v. Ringside Development Company, 2025 WL 562889 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2025).
Kevin Jameson entered into a franchise agreement and a related arbitration agreement with Ringside to operate a Ringside branded biomedical waste removal business in California. Jameson later sued Ringside in a California state court, alleging that Ringside’s products were substandard and caused harm to Jameson’s business. After removing the case to federal court, Ringside moved the court to stay the proceedings pending the parties’ resolution through contractually required ADR.
The court granted Ringside’s motion to stay despite Jameson’s opposition. Jameson argued that he and Ringside did not mutually assent to the forum selection and choice-of-law clauses contained in the arbitration agreement. The court disagreed, reasoning that there was a meeting of the minds between the parties because Jameson signed the arbitration agreement, initialed a portion of the agreement that related to ADR, and conceded to the court that arbitration must occur. Jameson next argued that there was no mutual assent as to who should decide whether an issue is arbitrable—the court or an arbitrator. The court again disagreed, finding that the agreement clearly stated that the issue of arbitrability should be decided under the arbitration rules of JAMS, which provide that arbitrability decisions should be decided by an arbitrator. Jameson finally argued that Ringside failed to satisfy certain conditions precedent to arbitration. The court again found that the conditions precedent issue should be decided by the arbitrator.
[View source.]
