The parties’ arbitration provision said that “except for claims seeking injunctive or other equitable relief,” the parties agreed to arbitrate any dispute between them.  Plaintiff filed suit including among others claims for specific performance, rescission, and violation of the UCL.  This decision holds that all of those claims are equitable or seek equitable relief and thus are not arbitrable under the unambiguous wording of the arbitration provision’s exception–even though it recognizes that the provision thus allows the plaintiff to control whether it must arbitrate by carefully choosing to allege equitable claims or request equitable remedies.  In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the court also finds that the trial court did not err in staying arbitration of the non-equitable claims pending the court’s resolution of the equitable ones.