HOLDINGS: [1]-A former employee of a California partnership that had merged into a Maryland partnership did not preserve a challenge to the successor firm’s standing to enforce an arbitration agreement under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281, 1281.2, because this issue was not raised in opposition to the petition to compel arbitration, and it lacked merit in any event because both Corp. Code, § 16914, subd. (a)(1), and Md. Code Ann., Corp. & Ass’ns § 3-114 made clear that the successor firm could enforce its predecessor’s contract rights; [2]-Consistent with Civ. Code, § 1589, continued employment after the merger was an implicit acceptance of the existing terms of employment, including the arbitration agreement; [3]-An integration clause in the termination agreement did not supersede the arbitration clause because the termination agreement did not address arbitration or dispute resolution.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is an Orange County Business Lawyer
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.