McCoy v. Fleetwood Aluminum Products CA4/1

── McCoy v. Fleetwood Aluminum Products CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 McCoy v. Fleetwood Aluminum Products CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARK MCCOY, D087164 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CVRI2400738) FLEETWOOD ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Dennis W. Hayashi, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Alameda Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Requests for judicial notice denied. Greenberg Traurig, Gregory A. Nylen and Karin L. Bohmholdt, for Defendants and Appellants Fleetwood Aluminum Products, Inc.; Fleetwood Aluminum Products, LLC; and Masonite Corporation. Raines Feldman Littrell, Laith D. Mosely and Joshua C. Williams, for Defendants and Appellants Janice McCoy, Mica Gumbleton, Mara McCoy Cartier, and Michele Davis.  Godes & Preis, Joseph M. Preis and Oliver B. Dreger, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Mark McCoy used to work at Fleetwood Aluminum Products, Inc. (Fleetwood), during which time he signed an arbitration agreement (Agreement) with Fleetwood. After his employment was terminated, he remained a shareholder in Fleetwood, a family-owned business. Fleetwood later contributed many—but not all—of its assets and liabilities to wholly owned subsidiary Fleetwood Aluminum Products, LLC (the LLC) and then sold its equity in the LLC to Masonite Corporation. Citing his ownership interest in Fleetwood, McCoy sued Fleetwood, the LLC, Masonite, and Fleetwood directors Janice McCoy, Mica Gumbleton, Mara McCoy Cartier, and Michele Davis (collectively, the Directors) based on the allegedly fraudulent nature of the transfer to Masonite. All defendants petitioned to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. All defendants appeal. We conclude the trial court should have compelled arbitration of McCoy’s claims against Fleetwood. Our decision interpreting the Agreement’s delegation language in another lawsuit between McCoy and Fleetwood controls under the doctrine of issue preclusion. And we perceive no intentional relinquishment of Fleetwood’s right to enforce arbitration as to only it based on Fleetwood filing a joint petition to compel arbitration with the LLC and Masonite. Without more, we will not impose waiver. Under the Agreement’s delegation language, McCoy’s claims against the Directors must also proceed to arbitration. McCoy expressly agreed to delegate to the arbitrator all threshold questions of arbitrability of claims defined to encompass “any claim” he may have against Fleetwood’s directors. As a result, the arbitrator must determine if the Directors have standing to 2 enforce the Agreement as nonsignatories and whether the claims asserted fall within the scope of the Agreement. As to the LLC and Masonite, denying the petition to compel arbitration was proper. The Agreement contains no clear and unmistakable delegation of McCoy’s claims against the LLC and Masonite, so they must establish standing to enforce the Agreement in court before proceeding to arbitration. They have not. The LLC and Masonite’s claim to third-party beneficiary status is predicated on, and thus fails for, the same reason as their arguments about the delegation claus