In Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc. (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 94, the court applied this standard and affirmed an order staying arbitration. In that case, the issue was whether the defendants had defrauded the plaintiff when they induced him to sign a home loan agreement. In addition to the mortgage company, the plaintiff named as a defendant an individual who had been instrumental in obtaining plaintiff's signature. The loan agreement between the plaintiff and the mortgage company contained an arbitration clause, but it did not apply to the individual defendants. The Court of Appeal found that there were three crucial issues in dispute: (1) whether the individual defendants defrauded the plaintiff; (2) whether the individual defendants were acting as agents of the corporate defendant; and (3) whether the corporate defendant was liable for the acts of the individual defendants. The court concluded that "the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of fact or law is obvious and the trial court's order is clearly 'in bounds.' " Accordingly, the court upheld the stay of arbitration under section 1281.2, subdivision (c) pending the outcome of the trial against the individual defendants.