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

• The plaintiffs, acting as personal representatives and in their individual capacities, filed a lawsuit against Clovis Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center LLC, its staff, and Dr. John M. Shrader for medical malpractice, spoliation of evidence, and wrongful death following the death of Jesus Orozco. An arbitration agreement was signed by Jesus Orozco's son upon his father's admission to the nursing facility, which the defendants sought to enforce (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued against the enforcement of the arbitration agreement, challenging its validity and alleging unconscionability (para 4).
• Defendants: Filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement signed at the time of Jesus Orozco's admission to the Nursing Facility, asserting the agreement's validity (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order compelling arbitration between the plaintiffs and defendants, excluding Dr. Shrader, constitutes a final, appealable order (para 4).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as premature because the district court's order compelling arbitration was not final (para 7).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Linda M. Vanzi and Julie J. Vargas, Judges concurring, determined that the appeal was premature. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing jurisdiction before addressing the merits of an appeal and noted that orders under the Uniform Arbitration Act of 1971 are not inherently appealable unless specified. Since the district court's order did not resolve all claims against all parties—specifically, claims against Dr. Shrader remained pending and the court did not certify that there was no just reason for delay—the order compelling arbitration was not deemed final and thus not appealable at this stage. The decision underscored the distinction between final, appealable orders and those that do not conclude all claims or involve all parties, referencing procedural rules and prior case law to support this conclusion (paras 2-6).