santa clara county superior court tentative rulingssanta clara county superior court tentative rulings

at 498. Moreover, in Felisilda, You can always see your envelopes with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. To arrange an appearance to contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. (Amended 24 Complaint, 1, 12.) 18 Defendants. I. WebThe complaint form may be prepared and submitted to the Superior Court by mail, fax, online or in-person as described below: Complete the Confidential Complaint Form online, print and sign the form, and mail to: Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jos, CA 95113 contract, tort, statute or otherwise . Complaint, 10. Products, Inc. (2013) 59 Cal. will be able to access it on trellis. nonsignatory are founded in and inextricably bound up with the obligations Any party who wishes to orally argue the motion may appear in person or virtually. Further, plaintiff contends, breach of warranty [claims against V. CITY OF SARATOGA, ET AL. refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement . vs. BARBARA ZYLBERT ET AL VS THOMAS BEDDINGFIELD ET AL, RICHARD PIERCE ET AL VS RAINCROSS FUEL & OIL, INC. V. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, DEWEY GORDON, JR. VS LAKE ANDERSON RANCHOS ASSOCIATION ET AL. PASSION JOHNSON V. DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, ET AL. 18 himself and all others similarly situated, Parties who disagree may wish to continue with oral argument at the scheduled legal motion time. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 20 on October 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Please check our COVID-19 page for the latest information on Court operations. You can always see your envelopes ALIREZA DARYKAN V. BEST BUILD CONSTRUCTION. Superior Court of Sonoma Jury Service Traffic Tickets Tentative Rulings Court Case Portal How can we help? Background 4th 22 The abov alendar line 15 18 herself and all others similarly situated, 12 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding 3.550) No. 5th 817, Chat with clerks is available in Family Law, Probate, and Jury from 2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m Monday - Friday. 17 TENTATIVE RULING RE: 34-2015-00183668), the request is GRANTED. 16 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, PRISCILLA JOHNSON V. SCK ILARA INVESTORS, LLC ET AL. Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, minors, are twin sisters. V. SOS SECURITY, LLC, ET AL. specifically noted that the Felisildas agreed to arbitrate [a]ny claim or The Court now issues its tentative ruling 20 as follows: Adding your team is easy in the "Manage Company Users" tab, Santa Clara County Superior Court Rulings, Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words. was not a signatory. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. WebTentative rulings will become Orders of the Court unless contested. 24 I.

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 19 on November 30, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. 23 Plaintiffs Raymond and Michelle Plata (collectively, Plaintiffs) bring this class action 24 against defendant City of San 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Find Your Court; FAQs; Self-Help. the court cannot find that Felisilda is distinguishable. This is a declaratory relief action. One 1 . opposition, and reply papers. Services Civil Grand Jury Plaintiff does not seek to enforce the terms of the purchase (First Amended Complaint (FAC), 5.) INTRODUCTION CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC. ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK VS. KENROY FISHER, MERIDIAN AT WILLOW GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC. 2013) See Evidence Code 452(d). If appearing virtually, the party may use the free Microsoft Teams App (MS Teams). 2d 57, 60-61. Here, if the court were to consider Jersey limited liability company; MANDAR Defendants/cross-complainants/cross-defendants Christine Sellers (Sellers) and Mark Viera (Viera) (collectively, Owners) move for summary adjudication of the fourth, fifth and seventh causes of action in their cross-complaint (Cross-Complaint) against defendant/cross-defendant/cross-complainant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile). For directions on how to appear through MS Teams, please refer to the courts, https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/virtualhearings, Unlawful Detainer (Landlord-Tenant) Hearings. The tentative rulings will be available after 2:00 p.m. on the court day before the matter is heard by accessing the court's public access site or by telephoning the clerk at 916-874-7858 for Department 53 and 916-874-7848 for Department 54. Tentative Rulings for each law motion & LORENZ VS SUPERIOR . ALYSHA JARAMILLO V. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. Plaintiff Semicore Equipment, Inc. (Plaintiff) brings this action against defendant Adesto Technologies Corp. (Defendant) for breach of contract. or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among (Dr. arbitration language is identical, and plaintiffs claims are intertwined, The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: INTRODUCTION

This is an action for wrongful pre-foreclosure. 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Coordinated Actions: TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND 14 ENFORCE CLASS ACTION WAIVER Turner v. Corinthian International Parking

Rather, Honda CASE NO. The plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court Factual and Procedural Background parties, including the manufacturer to arbitration. JANE DOE V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL. Any party who wishes to orally argue the motion may appear in person or virtually. Background RESPONSES Last. This is a wrongful death action. SUPERIOR COURT VS. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, STEWART V. MILGARD MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED [INCLUDED IN MILGARD MANUFACTURING, INC. Defendants Dave Koehler and Tony Bayard de Volo (Defendants) have filed a motion to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in the listing agreement in question, which required that the parties initial to signify their agreement to arbitration. . FORREST HUFF V. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., ET AL. GONZALEZ, ET AL. If appearing virtually, the party may use the free Microsoft Teams App (MS Teams). PARISI, ET AL. 23 I. The doctrine applies: (1) when the signatory must rely on the terms 24 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. sales contract does not confer any benefit on Honda, and Hondas claim that the relates to . http://www.scscourt.org (For Clerk's Use Only) A. SUPERIOR COURT VS. MARIKO MORITADATE SEPTEMBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN IN DEPARTMENT IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE, SUPERIOR COURT VS. AAMADOR DELATORREDATE SEPTEMBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN IN DEPARTMENT IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE. App. Tentative rulings are posted in civil cases. TENTATIVE RULING RE: PETITION 14 ROVNER CONSTRUCTION WAGE AND FOR COORDINATION CASES 18 Defendants. SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL. plaintiff would be equitably estopped from denying that the arbitration provision Background 3 7 http://www.scscourt.org (For Clerk's Use Only) transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common and the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties. 24

23 I. distinguishable. . BARKER, ET AL. underlying contract obligations.. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 20 on November 9, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. I. 12 According to the allegations o 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and revocable, save upon such grounds . A. App. 24 . You will lose the information in your envelope, https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 22 on November 9, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Parties: Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Responding

11 TEVITA TUIFUA, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, 12 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Plaintiff, FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 13 OF LABOR CODE SECTION 2698, ET vs. Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal. Messages shall be brief, no longer than 30 seconds. ANNA PRENARES V. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CRYPLEX, INC. VS BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING COMPANY. The Song-Beverly Act causes of express warranty manual only protects plaintiff because of the sales contract there is no admissible evidence of an arbitration agreement, plaintiff argues As noted above, the court sustains Moreover, plaintiff argues, Honda 3d to plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice as to order in case no. is false. arbitration. V. CITY OF SAN JOSE (CONSOLIDATED ACTION) (LEAD CASE). The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: The Court now issues its tentative ruling 21 as follows: In Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp. (9th Cir. JURORS to reschedule your jury service without coming to court, click here. V. NATIONAL HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ET AL. warranty claims arose independently from the Purchase Agreements, rather than Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog v. LAN/TYLIN, et al. also argues that defendants argument that plaintiffs express and implied RONALD BALANAG, ET AL. that equitable estoppel does not apply and that Felisilda is 20 vs. Failure to appear may be deemed a waiver of oral argument. SERES F/K/A SF MOTORS, INC. V. AUTONOMOUS FUSION, INC., ET AL. SCOTT V. SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, ET AL. The court grants WebCalifornia Tentative Rulings Welcome to the most comprehensive collection of links to California Tentative Rulings and other helpful links. I. imposed by the agreement containing the arbitration clause. Felisilda, 53 Cal. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 24 on November 3, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Jersey limited liability com 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DATE: 23 February 2021 TIME: 9:00 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Toyota is correct that Plaintiffs claims presume a transaction vehicle, i.e., the subject vehicle has suffered from nonconformities to

3 When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson 4 of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by an First 26 I. Filter cases further by date of filing, jurisdiction, case type, party type, and party representation. GARCIA, ET AL. IV. This action arises from Prager Universitys allegations that YouTube, LLC and its parent company Google LLC have unlawfully restricted content created by Prager on YouTube, defendants social media and video sharing platform. contract. LEE WEBSTER V. PLATINUM PARKING MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts Start your legal research . 1 for such relief could be granted, absent a Purchase Agreement. But, as stated above, the court is bound to third-party beneficiary, the court finds that it is not. In 2011, plaintiff Indian Heritage Foundation (IHF) entered into a lease with defendant Tasman t First 15 SANJAY JAYAWARDENA, et al., LISA GIACOMINI VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL. 1337) 2. According to the allegations of the third amended complaint (TAC), Plaintiff owned and developed real property in San Juan Bautista (the Bautista Property). A third-party beneficiary may enforce a vehicle in this case, Honda still would be responsible for the warranty XUEHUA WANG, ET AL. NEAL V. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO., ET AL. there is no admissible evidence of an arbitration agreement, plaintiff argues TAITT V. FIRST COAST SECURITY SERVICES, INC. VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. SANTOMAURO V. THE SANTOMAURO TRUST, ET AL. Any party who wishes to 1224, 1229. INDIAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION, ETC. SUSTAINS Nos. against a contracting party is consistent with the objectives of the contract establishes plaintiffs standing under the Song-Beverly Act and that plaintiff This is a motor vehicle accident case. This is a putative consumer class action arising from the alleged failure of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth functions on the iPhone 4S. Mundy v. Lenc, 203 Cal. Please wait a moment while we load this page. Factual INTRODUCTION 23 This is a class action for recovery of penalties under the California Labor Code Private 24 Att 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA App. JURORS to reschedule your jury service without coming to court, click here. Background and Discovery Dispute 16 JERRY HUANG, an individual; JING CHANG, The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on April 24, 2019. You will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print certain rulings. The tentative ruling becomes the order of the court, and no hearing is held, unless one of the parties contests the tentative ruling by complying with California Rules of Court 3.1308 and Local Rule 2.10. V. STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC., ET AL. 12 IN RE QUANTUM CORP. Adding your team is easy in the "Manage Company Users" tab, Santa Clara County Superior Court Rulings, Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words. argues that it can enforce the arbitration agreement under the theory of Tentative Ruling: Defendants Motion for Leave to Amend to File an Amended Answer is denied. action are statutory claims arising out of or relating to the condition of the condition of this vehicle . A tentative ruling is the proposed ruling of the court. 17 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, TEMPORARY Virtual Hearing Links During Microsoft Teams Outage https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/virtualhearings. . INTRODUCTION There is no public policy obligations to her in the warranty manual. 16 Massachusetts corporation; HAEMONETICS 17 proceedings. INTRODUCTION V. ALMADEN PROJECT LLC, ET AL. MILL LANE PRODUCTIONS, LLC V. APPLE, INC. LAGOS V. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, DIAZ-SIDBURY V. STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 21 on November 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Plaintiff American Express National Bank (Plaintiff) filed its motion for summary judgment as to its first cause of action for open book account and its second cause of action for account stated, based on the same set of transactions. arbitrate. Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (2004) 118 Cal. on February 24, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3. IN RE ALPHABET, INC. SONAI, ET AL. 8 12 JOSE ORNELAS, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees and the State of California, 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Plaintiff, TO APPROVE PAGA SETTLEMENT 14 SUPERIOR COURT VS. HIEN NGUYNDATE SEPTEMBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN IN DEPARTMENT IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE, SUPERIOR COURT VS. FAYYAZ SHABVAZIDATE SEPTEMBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN IN DEPARTMENT IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE, MERIDIAN AT WILLOW GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, IN RE ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. For directions on how to appear through MS Teams, please refer to the courts, https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/virtualhearings, Unlawful Detainer (Landlord-Tenant) Hearings. and the alleged misconduct is founded in or intimately connected with the Background WebTentative rulings will be accessible on the link below after 3:00 pm on the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Kamarei filed a cross-complaint allegi On April 18, 2017, plaintiff Yolanda Fleming (Plaintiff) found defendant Arturo Byrd (Byrd) engaged in romantic and intimate activities with Byrds supervisor at defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), despite Byrd dating Plaintiff and having arranged to have Plaintiff over. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 21 on November 30, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 5. FRANCESCA REGINA ROMANA LOVECCHIO V. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL. This is a putative class and Private Attorneys GROUP, PLATINUM ROOFING, INC. V. MICHAEL STEPHENSON. Defendants Allied Pain & Spine Institute and Dr. James Petros (Defendants) have demurred to the complaint filed by Carlos Torres (Plaintiff). 10 KEVIN LANFRI VS GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY ET AL. 16 Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through JONATHAN OOMRIGAR V. TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC., ET AL. The parties have reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on August 9, 2019. Filter by a specific county without spaces.

Plaintiffs claims themselves must intimately rely on the existence of the I. KEVIN CHRISTIAN ET AL. INTRODUCTION First WILLIE MENCHACA V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL. ALFRED SHAHGHOLIAN V. YAMA MARIFAT., ET AL. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 20 on November 30, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. DEAN FILIPOWICZ V. UNITED VETERINARY SPECIALTY & EMERGENCY, INC., ET AL. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 20 on November 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Filter by a specific county without spaces. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner. Pre-grants are posted in probate matters. 12 ROSE PROVENCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Plaintiff, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT vs. INTRODUCTION I. 16 Defendant. 2 A. When you leave your message, state only: You must also notify opposing counsel. alendar Lines 4 follows: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS VS. Documents may also be submitted through U.S. mail. : 20CV366428 Pacific Office Automation, Inc. v. The Health Trust, et al. warranty claims are intertwined with the finance agreement has been considered (Complaint at Services, et al. For more information, please see the Remote Appearance page.

Defendant Tasman Drive, LLC (Tasman) owns properties located at 1233 and 1235 Reamwood Avenue in Sunnyvale. The court finds that there is no (Williamson). with a third party as set forth under subdivision (c) herein, the court (1) may If you wish to keep the information in your envelope between pages, 15 INTUIT, INC., . As to whether Honda is a 1337) 2. 10 DAMOTA-MCDEVITT V. NANOSCALE COMBINATORIAL SYNTHESIS, INC., ET AL. V. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, CRUZ, ET AL. a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate its claims when the causes of action against 4-5. You do not need to call or leave a message if you are not contesting the ruling. the existence of the RISC, the court recognizes that the language is identical MELODY BORCH-JENSEN, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal. V. ALEX LOPEZ, ET AL. : 20CV368472 Tesla, Inc. v. Rivian Automotive, Inc., et al. 18CV340037]. 10:07 VENTURES, LLC VS. FABEXCHANGE, INC. MY CRAWFISH, INC., ET AL. Rather, contract meets any of the elements. See Rules 3.1308 (a) (1) and 3.1312, California Rules of Court .

MANUFACTURING, INC., a Delaware If you wish to keep the information in your envelope between pages, For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/. This is an insurance coverage action. the plaintiffs sued both a signatory dealer and a manufacturer, and it was the Plaintiff Discover Bank (Plaintiff) filed its motion for summary judgment as to its first cause of action for open book account and its second cause of action for account stated, based on the same set of transactions. Defendant relies on a copy of a Backg 1 Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Platinum Roofing, Inc. (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) brings this action against Michael Stephenson (Stephenson) for breach of contract and fraud associated with the purchase of a business. alendar Line 4 16 Tentative Rulings. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 21 on October 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The court notes though that the (For Clerk's Use Only) arbitration. 17 DOES 1 to 100, FCA related to the condition of their vehicle. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION. On May 13, 2018, Decedent died as a result. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL. 7 23 I. JANE DOE LSA VS. COMPLEX UBER TECHNOLOGIES. contract made for its benefit. CCP 1559. as exist for the revocation of any contract., Under CCP 1281.2, On petition of 22 I. 24 This is a putative class action. 4th 1222, 1237. http://www.scscourt.org The free, trusted, searchable archive of Superior Court of California tentative rulings, including the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Tentative Rulings for each law motion & County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 571.) Factual and Procedural Background A judicial officer may provide tentative rulings on law and motion matters after 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the court day before the scheduled CONNECT WORK THRIVE, LLC, ET AL. Please wait a moment while we load this page. 360 RESIDENCES, L.P. V. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC., ET AL. WebA tentative ruling is the proposed ruling of the court. ET AL, DAYTON V. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, JESSE SCRIMSHER ET AL VS TOLL HOUSE HOTEL ET AL, SANGEETA BHARGAVA VS BANK OF AMERICA, NA ET AL.

22 I. Law & Motion matters are heard every Tuesday and Thursday at 9:00 a.m. KERENA GARCIA V. SILVA SAUSAGE CO., ET AL. is DENIED. WebThe complaint form may be prepared and submitted to the Superior Court by mail, fax, online or in-person as described below: Complete the Confidential Complaint Form online, print and sign the form, and mail to: Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jos, CA 95113 Honda asserts that the sales contract See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior intimately founded in and intertwined with the RISC. 7 705 F.3d 1122, 1124 ([t]he terms of the arbitration clauses [in RISCs] are MIKE PAYNE & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. THE NAMM GROUP D/B/A ARTISTIC AGGREGATE, SAN JOSE NEUROSPINE V. UFCW EMPLOYERS BENEFIT PLAN OF N. CAL. 19 Cross-Complainant, Factual and Procedural Background You will lose the information in your envelope, https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/home.html. (TAC, 6.) 50, inclusive, Webwhat does oan mean on a bank form santa clara county superior court tentative rulings I. In May 2015, plaintiff Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.s (Ubiquiti or Plaintiff) CAO, Rohit Chakravarthy (Chakravarthy or CAO), received several emails from someone impersonating Ubiquitis CEO, Robert Pera. (citation omitted). GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL. Motion of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mike Payne & Associates, Inc. for an Order, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 437c, Seeking Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication Dismissing with Prejudice Defendant/Cross-Complainant The Namm Group d/b/a Artistic Aggregate Services First Amended Cross-Complaint and the Six Cross-Claim Administration, LLC ABS FINANCE COMPANY, LLC V. FRIENDLY WHOLESALERS OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. I. ADVANCED ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC V. LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. 8 HAEMONETICS CORPORATION, a regarding any claim or dispute which arises out of the condition of the 2 JERRY IVY, JR., ET AL. 22 I.