Altobelli v. Hartmann

871 N.W.2d 150, 498 Mich. 912
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 13, 2015
Docket150656
StatusPublished

This text of 871 N.W.2d 150 (Altobelli v. Hartmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Altobelli v. Hartmann, 871 N.W.2d 150, 498 Mich. 912 (Mich. 2015).

Opinion

reported below: 307 Mich App 612. The defendants in this case are principal members of a law firm. The operating agreement for the law firm contains a mandatory arbitration agreement covering any dispute, controversy or claim between the law firm and a current or former principal. The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the operating agreement’s mandatory arbitration provision because the plaintiffs claims are directed at the individual defendants, rather than the law firm. In addressing that issue, the parties may also address whether, under theories including but not limited to agency or equitable estoppel, a mandatory arbitration provision covering disputes “between the Firm ... and any current or former Principal” may properly be invoked *913 to resolve disputes between managing principals and a former principal. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant remains pending.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Altobelli v. Hartmann
861 N.W.2d 913 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
871 N.W.2d 150, 498 Mich. 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altobelli-v-hartmann-mich-2015.