AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In December 2014, the Son entered into an agreement with Forrester to purchase a "Unit" in the Roaring Fork partnership, with the Father transferring $60,000 to Son's account for the investment. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. Plaintiffs sued Forrester and one of his employees in January 2016, alleging violations of the New Mexico Uniform Securities Act and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, seeking to recover their investment in Black Gold. Forrester moved to dismiss or compel arbitration based on the agreement's arbitration provision (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County, Jane Shuler-Gray, District Judge: Denied Forrester's motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the plaintiffs had chosen to sue Forrester individually and not the entities Roaring Fork and Black Gold (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the agreement's arbitration provision did not apply to their claims against Forrester individually, as the agreement was between Son and Roaring Fork, and there was no contract between Plaintiffs and Forrester (para 10).
• Defendant-Appellant (Forrester): Contended that the agreement's arbitration provision covered all claims brought by Plaintiffs and that the proper defendants were the entities involved in the agreement, not Forrester personally. Forrester argued that Plaintiffs' attempt to hold him personally liable was an impermissible tactic to avoid arbitration (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether Forrester may compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims based on the agreement's arbitration provision (para 10).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of Forrester's motion to compel arbitration was affirmed with respect to the Father and reversed with respect to the Son. The case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per J. Miles Hanisee, with Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Daniel J. Gallegos, Judge Pro Tempore concurring, found that the district court erred in denying Forrester's motion to compel arbitration as to the Son, who was a signatory to the agreement. The court applied a de novo standard of review and emphasized New Mexico's strong preference for resolving disputes through arbitration. It distinguished between the Son, a signatory, and the Father, a nonsignatory, to the agreement. The court concluded that the Son must arbitrate his claims due to the broad language of the arbitration clause, which covered all disputes related to the agreement or the purchase of units in the joint venture. However, the Father, who never agreed to arbitrate, could not be compelled to do so. The court's analysis focused on the intent of the parties and the applicability of the arbitration agreement to the claims against Forrester, finding that the Son's claims pertained to and arose out of the agreement and were thus subject to arbitration (paras 7-21).