Rick HasenVerified account

Good questions. I don't see the signature issue as very compelling though. An interesting, but maybe bad faith, filing to end run the arbitration clause.

Here in Ohio our declaratory judgment act requires all parties having an interest in the contract to be made parties to the case. CA's CCP 1060 doesn't appear to require that, at least from its text. If so, I wonder whether they should have left EC out of the case.

I.e., seek a declaration only vis-a-vis Trump. The fact that Trump didn't sign might help avoid arbitration. EC did sign, and so it has a better argument for stay or dismissal.

The parties are described as "EC and/or DD". Why isn't EC's signature via Cohen good enough?

I actually think it may well be! I just think the argument for avoiding arbitration is stronger if the claims are limited to DD.

(Though I also think, when the agreement is read as a whole, that there's a non-frivolous argument that DD is a separate party. He's regularly separately identified, has a separate signature line, etc.)

DD makes reps and warranties in the agreement. How can EC's signature be sufficient to bind him to those?

Well, EC could be DD's agent, and that would bind DD. I haven't come to a firm conclusion in my mind about whether that's likely the case; I can only do so much armchair lawyering based on having scanned the doc a few times and having no other facts at hand.