Cited by

of Am., Inc., ¶ 26 (App. 2014) (“‘In general, a party is bound to arbitrate only those disputes which it has contractually agreed to arbitrate,’ and is not bound to arbitrate disputes it has not specifically agreed to arbitrate.”).

of Am., Inc., ¶ 31 (App. 2014).

of Am., Inc., ¶ 26 (App. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

§§ 1-16, does not preempt Arizona case law set forth in Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., and Estate of DeCamacho ex rel.

of Am., Inc., ¶ 26 (App. 2014).

of Am., Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2014).

of Am., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (rejecting argument that individual challenging the agreement must prove both procedural and substantive unconscionability because “[e]ither doctrine can provide an independent defense to enforceability”); 9 U.S.C.

of Am., Inc., ¶ 34 (App. 2014).

of Am., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2014).

of America, Inc., ¶ 26, (stating that theories that may bind a non-signatory to an agreement “include incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, veil-piercing or alter ego, equitable estoppel, and third-party beneficiary)12 (citation omitted).

of Am., Inc., , 136 ¶ 14, (concluding that party challenging a contract term bears the burden of showing unconscionability); see also DJ Mfg.

of Am., Inc., ¶ 31 (App. 2014) (quoting A.R.S.

The respondent concluded that Sierra Tucson had not shown transfer was appropriate pursuant to § 12-406(B)(2) and that the venue selection provision “is not binding upon the surviving beneficiaries that bring this wrongful death action,” citing Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., P.3d 763 (App. 2014).

of Am., Inc., ¶ 35, (applying the rule that in interpreting a contract, we must give meaning to all material terms and render none of them superfluous); Tabler, 202 Ariz. at 521, ¶ 13, 47 P.3d at 1159 (“The determination of the parties’ intent must be based on objective evidence, not the hidden i

Guthrie v. La Solana Care and Rehab, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2014); see also Duenas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2014) (“An agreement to arbitrate relates to the jurisdiction of the courts.”) ¶15 Here, the parties contracted that the purchase price would be adjusted to reflect any increase, or decrease, in the inventory of TSI/Alanco between the valuation date, May 31, 2010, and the closing date.

DiMercurio v. Sphere Drake Ins., PLC., 202 F.3d 71, 77 (1st Cir. 2000); cf. Duenas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., Defendants Heath joined in Watne and Red Arrow’s Answering Brief on appeal.