John Murphy v. Directv, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a party “waived any claim of confidentiality” in a document filed under seal in the district court, where counsel made representations at oral argument as to the contents of the document
• holding that Best Buy could not invoke an arbitration clause in a contract between the plaintiff and DirecTV because the claims against Best Buy did not rely on the contract and there was no agency relationship between DirecTV and Best Buy
• noting that “generally only signatories to an arbitration agreement are obligated to submit to binding arbitration”
• referring to the two-part framework articulated in Kramer “as a controlling statement of California law [on] the equitable estoppel rule set forth in Goldman”
• employing the rule of construction 12 “that mention of one matter implies the exclusion of all others”
• finding customer agreement was not the basis for fraud claims and so equitable 20 estoppel does not apply

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).