grand wireless, inc. v. verizon wireless, inc., 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Grand Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1149

GRAND WI RELESS, I NC. ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

VERI ZON WI RELESS, I NC. ; ERI N McCAHI LL,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Edwar d F. Har r i ngt on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Ri ppl e* and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Phi l i p R. Sel l i nger , wi t h whom Davi d G. Thomas, Zachar y C.Kl ei nsasser, Todd L. Schl ei f st ei n and Gr eenber g Tr aur i g, LLP wer eon br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Samuel Per ki ns, wi t h whom Br ody, Hardoon, Per ki ns & Kest en,LLP was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Mar ch 19, 2014

* Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/24

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Gr and Wi r el ess, I nc. ( Gr and)

br ought t hi s act i on i n Massachuset t s st at e cour t agai nst Ver i zon

Wi r el ess, I nc. ( Ver i zon) and Ver i zon empl oyee Er i n McCahi l l . I t

al l eged a vi ol at i on of t he f eder al Racket eer I nf l uenced and Cor r upt

Or gani zat i ons Act ( RI CO) agai nst Ms. McCahi l l , as wel l as sever al

st at e l aw cl ai ms agai nst bot h Ms. McCahi l l and Ver i zon. The

def endant s r emoved t he case t o t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or

t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s and moved f or an order compel l i ng

ar bi t r at i on of Gr and s cl ai ms. Gr and opposed t he mot i on. I t

cont ended t hat t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause shoul d be i nt er pr et ed

narr owl y and t hat , because Ms. McCahi l l was not a si gnat ory t o t he

cont r act cont ai ni ng t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause, t he cl ai m agai nst her

coul d not be arbi t r ated i n t hi s case. Adopt i ng Gr and s memorandum

i n opposi t i on t o t he mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

def endant s mot i on t o compel and al so deni ed t hei r subsequent

r equest f or r econsi der at i on.

The def endant s t i mel y appeal ed. They submi t t hat Gr and s

cl ai ms wer e wi t hi n t he scope of t he par t i es ar bi t r at i on agr eement

and t hat ar bi t r at i on of t he cl ai ms agai nst Ms. McCahi l l i s not

bar r ed despi t e her st at us as a non- si gnat or y of t he ar bi t r at i on

agr eement . We agr ee and t her ef ore r everse t he j udgment of t he

di st r i ct cour t and r emand t he case f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

-2-


3/24

I

BACKGROUND

A. Facts

I n September 2002, Gr and and Ver i zon ent ered i nto an

Excl usi ve Aut hor i zed Agency Agr eement f or Commerci al Mobi l e Radi o

Servi ce ( Agr eement ) . The Agr eement aut hor i zed Gr and t o act as a

Ver i zon sal es agent wi t hi n a def i ned geogr aphi c ar ea. The

Agreement governed t he busi ness r el at i onshi p bet ween Gr and and

Ver i zon. I t r equi r ed Gr and t o pr ovi de ser vi ces excl usi vel y f or

Ver i zon by of f er i ng cust omer s Ver i zon ser vi ces, such as sal es,

i nst al l at i on, war r ant y servi ce and equi pment mai nt enance. The

Agr eement al so addr essed t he r el at i onshi p bet ween Gr and, Ver i zon

and subscr i bers who pur chased pr oduct s and ser vi ces t hr ough Gr and.

On t hi s poi nt , t he Agr eement pr ovi ded t hat subscr i ber l i st s wer e

t he excl usi ve conf i dent i al pr oper t y of Ver i zon Wi r el ess. 1 The

Agr eement pr ovi ded f or an i ni t i al t er m of f i ve year s; at t hat

poi nt , t he Agreement woul d cont i nue on a mont h- t o- mont h basi s,

t er mi nabl e by ei t her par t y on t hi r t y days wr i t t en not i ce t o t he

ot her .

The Agreement cont ai ned a provi si on ent i t l ed, DI SPUTE

RESOLUTI ON AND ARBI TRATI ON. I t st at ed, i n pert i nent par t :

Except t o t he ext ent expl i ci t l y pr ovi dedbel ow, ANY CONTROVERSY OR CLAI M ARI SI NG OUT OFOR RELATI NG TO THI S AGREEMENT, OR ANY PRI OR OR

1 R. 20- 1 3. 3.

-3-


4/24

FUTURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTI ES, SHALL BESETTLED BY ARBI TRATI ON ADMI NI STERED BY THEAMERI CAN ARBI TRATI ON ASSOCI ATI ON ( AAA) I NACCORDANCE WI TH THE WI RELESS I NDUSTRYASSOCI ATI ON ( WI A) RULES OF THE AAA, ASMODI FI ED BELOW, AND J UDGMENT ON THE AWARD

RENDERED BY THE ARBI TRATORS MAY BE ENTERED I NANY COURT HAVI NG J URI SDI CTI ON. [ 2]

The subsequent paragraphs expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat t he di sput es not

cover ed i ncl uded sever al i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y i ssues, as wel l as

[ s] eeki ng t o compel ar bi t r at i on; 3 [ s]eeki ng t o conf i rm or

chal l enge any ar bi t r al awar d; 4 seeki ng j udi ci al rel i ef f or

br eaches of sect i ons 3. 3 and 7 of t he Agr eement ; and seeki ng

emer gency i nj unct i ve r el i ef pendi ng t he appoi nt ment of ar bi t r at or s.

Provi si ons f ol l owed addr essi ng t he pr ocedur al aspect s of commenci ng

and conduct i ng ar bi t r at i on.

Ther e i s no di sput e t hat , under t he Agreement , Gr and

oper at ed r et ai l l ocat i ons f or Ver i zon pr oduct s and ser vi ces

begi nni ng i n 2002 unt i l t he f i ve- year t er m expi r ed i n Sept ember

2007. The par t i es t hen cont i nued t hei r r el at i onshi p on

a mont h- t o- mont h basi s unt i l J ul y 19, 2011, when Ver i zon not i f i ed

Gr and of i t s i nt ent t o t er mi nat e t he r el at i onshi p. Ver i zon submi t s

t hat at Gr and s r equest , Ver i zon extended t he t er mi nat i on dat e t o

Oct ober 31, 2011, i n or der t o g[ i ] ve Gr and addi t i onal t i me t o

2 I d. 15.

3 I d. 15. 2. 1.

4 I d. 15. 2. 2.

-4-


5/24

at t empt t o sel l cer t ai n of i t s st or es t o anot her Ver i zon Wi r el ess

agent . 5

I n Oct ober 2011, accor di ng t o Gr and s compl ai nt :

[ Ver i zon] mai l ed an over si zed ( 6 by 11)col or post car d, f eat ur i ng t he pi ct ur e of anat t r act i ve young woman, t o t he cust omers ofei ght r emai ni ng Gr and Wi r el ess st or es,pr ocl ai mi ng t hat t hese Gr and Wi r el ess s t or eshad CLOSED. The mai l i ng provi ded t hecust omers wi t h t he addr ess of t he near estcompet i ng Ver i zon Wi r el ess st ore. [ 6]

Gr and f ur t her al l eged t hat Ms. McCahi l l had aut hor i zed t he mai l i ng

and knew when t he mai l i ng went out t hat i t was f al se. 7 Gr and

st at ed t hat i t was, at t he t i me of t he mai l i ng, i n negot i at i ons

wi t h anot her wi r el ess provi der , T- Mobi l e, t o become an aut hor i zed

T- Mobi l e agent . Fur t her , Gr and al l eged t hat Ms. McCahi l l knew t hat

t he mai l i ng woul d deal a body bl ow t o Gr and Wi r el ess abi l i t y [ t o]

cont i nue i n busi ness as a T[ - ] Mobi l e out l et and t hat t he mai l i ng

was a del i ber ate at t empt t o el i mi nate Gr and Wi r el ess as a

compet i t or t o near by Ver i zon st or es. 8 Gr and al l eged t hat i t s

T- Mobi l e venture f ai l ed and t hat i t has si nce ceased oper at i ons.

5 Appel l ant s Br . 7. Gr and does not di sput e t hi s

r epr esent at i on. See Appel l ee s Br . 2.

6 R. 15 at 17, 11.

7 I d. at 17, 12.

8 I d. at 17, 13.

-5-


6/24

B. Procedural History

Gr and i ni t i al l y f i l ed t he pr esent act i on i n Massachuset t s

st at e cour t . I t s compl ai nt al l eged t hat Ms. McCahi l l had vi ol at ed

RI CO, 18 U. S. C. 1961 et seq. , by engag[ i ng] i n a f r audul ent

scheme that used t he Uni t ed St at es mai l s t o t r ansmi t f al se

r epr esent at i ons t hat GRAND WI RELESS . . . HAS CLOSED, i n

vi ol at i on of t he f eder al mai l f r aud st at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 1341. 9

I t f ur t her al l eged t hat bot h Ms. McCahi l l and Ver i zon had vi ol at ed

a Massachuset t s st at ut e pr ohi bi t i ng unf ai r and decept i ve t r ade

pr act i ces. Fi nal l y, Gr and al l eged t hat bot h Ms. McCahi l l and

Ver i zon had commi t t ed t he t or t s of i nj ur i ous f al sehoods and

i nt ent i onal i nt er f er ence wi t h an advant ageous rel at i onshi p.

The def endant s r emoved t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t ,

where Ver i zon and Ms. McCahi l l moved t o compel Gr and t o ar bi t r at e

i t s cl ai ms. Gr and opposed t he mot i on f or ar bi t r at i on. I t

submi t t ed t hat t he mot i on t o compel ar bi t r at i on shoul d be deni ed

f or t wo r easons: ( 1) t hat i t s cl ai ms f el l out si de of t he scope of

t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause; and ( 2) t hat Ms. McCahi l l coul d not enf or ce

t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause because she was not a par t y t o t he

Agr eement .

Bef or e t he deadl i ne had passed f or t he def endant s t o f i l e

t hei r r epl y br i ef , t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on t o compel .

I n r ul i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not i ssue a wr i t t en opi ni on;

9 I d. at 18, 16- 17 ( Count I ) .

-6-


7/24

i nst ead, i t si mpl y i ssued an or der st at i ng, Mot i on i s deni ed. The

cour t adopt s Pl ai nt i f f s Memor andum. So or der ed. 10 The def endants

moved f or r econsi der at i on. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hei r mot i on

i n anot her or der , st at i ng, Cour t has r econsi der ed Def endant s

Mot i on t o Compel Ar bi t r at i on and t o Di smi ss Compl ai nt or st ay

act i on pendi ng arbi t r at i on and agai n deni es same. So Or der ed. 11

The def endant s t hen brought t hi s t i mel y appeal . 12

II

DISCUSSION

We have j ur i sdi ct i on t o revi ew an order denyi ng a mot i on

under t he Feder al Ar bi t r at i on Act t o compel ar bi t r at i on. See 9

U. S. C. 16( a) ( 1) ( C) . Our r evi ew of such a deni al i s de novo

because whet her a mat t er i s arbi t r abl e i s a mat t er of cont r act

i nt er pr et at i on, and cont r act i nt er pr et at i on i s a mat t er of l aw.

Combi ned Ener gi es v. CCI , I nc. , 514 F. 3d 168, 171 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

To compel ar bi t r at i on, t he def endant s must demonst r at e t hat a

val i d agr eement t o ar bi t r at e exi st s, t hat t he[ y ar e] ent i t l ed t o

i nvoke t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause, t hat t he ot her par t y i s bound by

t hat cl ause, and t hat t he cl ai m asser t ed comes wi t hi n t he cl ause s

scope. Sot o- Fonal l edas v. Ri t z- Car l t on San J uan Hot el Spa &

10 R. 26.

11 R. 29.

12 The di st r i ct cour t st ayed t he pr oceedi ngs pendi ngr esol ut i on of t hi s appeal .

-7-


8/24

Casi no, 640 F. 3d 471, 474 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Fur t her mor e, as we al so not ed i n Sot o- Fonal l edas:

Under Sect i on 2 of t he FAA, a wr i t t enpr ovi si on i n a cont r act t o set t l e by

ar bi t r at i on a cont r over sy t her eaf t er ar i si ngout of such cont r act . . . shal l be val i d,i r r evocabl e, and enf or ceabl e, save upon suchgr ounds as exi st at l aw or i n equi t y f or t her evocat i on of any cont r act . 9 U. S. C. 2.The Supreme Cour t has st at ed t hat t he FAA wasdesi gned t o pr omot e ar bi t r at i on, and t hatSect i on 2 embodi es t he nat i onal pol i cyf avor i ng ar bi t r at i on and pl aces ar bi t r at i onagr eement s on equal f oot i ng wi t h al l ot hercont r acts.

I d. ( quot i ng AT&T Mobi l i t y LLC v. Concepci on, 131 S. Ct . 1740, 1749

( 2011) ; Buckeye Check Cashi ng, I nc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 443

( 2006) ) .

Her e, t he par t i es do not di sput e t he val i di t y of t he

Agr eement s ar bi t r at i on cl ause. I nst ead, t hey di sput e: ( 1) whet her

Gr and s cl ai ms ar e wi t hi n t he scope of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause; and

( 2) whet her Ms. McCahi l l i s ent i t l ed t o i nvoke t he ar bi t r at i on

cl ause. We addr ess each cont ent i on i n t ur n.

A. Scope of the Arbitration Clause

We f i r st addr ess whet her Gr and s cl ai ms ar e wi t hi n t he

scope of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause. Gr and and Ver i zon agr eed t o

ar bi t r at e any cont r over sy or cl ai mari si ng out of or r el at i ng t o

t hei r Agr eement . 13

13 R. 20- 1 15. ( These wor ds appear i n capi t al l et t er s i n t heAgreement . We have empl oyed r egul ar t ypef ace her e and i n l at er

( cont i nued. . . )

-8-


9/24

As we have not ed ear l i er , t he di st r i ct cour t si mpl y

adopt ed Gr and s memorandum. Theref ore, t he di st r i ct cour t

necessar i l y t ook t hat document s vi ew t hat t he Agr eement s

ar bi t r at i on cl ause was nar r ow. Such a const r uct i on, accor di ng t o

t hat memor andum, woul d l i mi t appl i cat i on of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause

t o bat t l es over t he Agency Agr eement , i . e. , t o cl ai ms t hat

r equi r e i nt er pr et at i on of t he Agr eement s t er ms. 14 The memor andum

al so asser t ed t hat nar r ow ar bi t r at i on cl auses ar e not ent i t l ed t o

a pr esumpt i on of ar bi t r abi l i t y.

I n t hi s appeal , Gr and t akes t he same posi t i on t hat i t di d

i n t he di st r i ct cour t . The def endant s cont end, however , t hat

Gr and s cl ai ms r el ate to t he Agr eement because t hey i nvol ve

mat t er s t hat occur r ed dur i ng t he cour se of t he agency r el at i onshi p.

Speci f i cal l y, Gr and s cl ai ms concer n Ver i zon s r i ght t o cont act

f r eel y i t s cust omer s and Ver i zon s t er mi nat i on of i t s r el at i onshi p

wi t h Gr and. The def endant s al so submi t t hat t he l anguage of t he

ar bi t r at i on cl ause i s br oad, and t her ef or e t he di sput e i s ent i t l ed

t o a pr esumpt i on of ar bi t r abi l i t y.

Unl ess t he par t i es cl ear l y and unmi st akabl y pr ovi de

ot herwi se, AT&T Techs. , I nc. v. Commc ns Worker s of Am. , 475 U. S.

643, 649 ( 1986) , t he court must r esol ve a di sagreement among t he

13( . . . cont i nued)uses of t hi s quot at i on f or r eadabi l i t y. )

14 R. 23 at 5- 6.

-9-


10/24

par t i es as t o whet her an ar bi t r at i on cl ause appl i es t o a par t i cul ar

di sput e, Gr ani t e Rock Co. v. I nt l Bhd. of Teamst er s, 130 S. Ct .

2847, 2857- 58 ( 2010) . [ A] cour t may or der arbi t r at i on of a

par t i cul ar di sput e onl y wher e t he cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat t he

par t i es agr eed t o ar bi t r at e t hat di sput e. I d. at 2856. When

deci di ng whet her t he par t i es agr eed t o ar bi t r at e a cer t ai n mat t er

. . . cour t s gener al l y . . . shoul d appl y or di nar y st at e- l aw

pr i nci pl es t hat gover n t he f or mat i on of cont r act s. Fi r st Opt i ons

of Chi . , I nc. v. Kapl an, 514 U. S. 938, 944 ( 1995) . We conduct our

anal ysi s wi t h t he f eder al pol i cy i n f avor of ar bi t r at i on i n mi nd,

such t hat , as wi t h any ot her cont r act , t he par t i es i nt ent i ons

cont r ol , but t hose i nt ent i ons ar e gener ousl y const r ued as t o i ssues

of ar bi t r abi l i t y. Mi t subi shi Mot or s Cor p. v. Sol er Chr ysl er -

Pl ymout h, I nc. , 473 U. S. 614, 626 ( 1985) . At a mi ni mum, t hi s

pol i cy r equi r es t hat ambi gui t i es as t o t he scope of t he

ar bi t r at i on cl ause i t sel f [ must be] r esol ved i n f avor of

ar bi t r at i on. Power Shar e, I nc. v. Synt el , I nc. , 597 F. 3d 10, 15

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Vol t I nf o. Sci s. ,

I nc. v. Bd. of Tr s. of Lel and St anf or d J r . Uni v. , 489 U. S. 468,

475- 76 ( 1989) ) . Thi s pr esumpt i on i n f avor of ar bi t r at i on appl i es

unl ess t he par t y opposi ng ar bi t r at i on r ebut s i t . Di al ysi s Access

Ct r . , LLC v. RMS Li f el i ne, I nc. , 638 F. 3d 367, 379 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ;

Paul Rever e Var i abl e Annui t y I ns. Co. v. Ki r schhof er , 226 F. 3d 15,

25 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( I t i s t r ue t hat , gener al l y speaki ng, t he

-10-


11/24

pr esumpt i on i n f avor of ar bi t r at i on appl i es t o t he r esol ut i on of

scope quest i ons. ) .

To deter mi ne whether Gr and s cl ai ms f al l wi t hi n t he scope

of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause, we f ocus on t he f act ual al l egat i ons

under l yi ng [ t he] cl ai ms i n t he [ c] ompl ai nt . Di al ysi s Access Ct r . ,

LLC, 638 F. 3d at 378. Gr and al l eged t hat Ver i zon s f al se and

del i ber at e mi sr epr esent at i on t o Gr and Wi r el ess cust omer s t hat Gr and

Wi r el ess had ceased t o do busi ness har med Gr and. 15 Gr and made

f act ual al l egat i ons r egar di ng Ver i zon s t er mi nat i on of i t s

r el at i onshi p wi t h Gr and. The compl ai nt descr i bed t he cust omer

mai l i ng and Gr and s bel i ef t hat Ver i zon and Ms. McCahi l l knew t hat

t he mai l i ng cont ai ned f al se i nf or mat i on yet aut hor i zed i t s

di st r i but i on i n or der t o har m Gr and i n a del i ber at e at t empt t o

el i mi nat e Gr and Wi r el ess as a compet i t or . 16

Based on t he al l egat i ons i n Gr and s compl ai nt , r esol ut i on

of t hi s di sput e wi l l ent ai l det er mi ni ng, at l east , t he st at us of

Gr and and Ver i zon s r el at i onshi p as of Oct ober 2011, whet her t he

cust omers cont act ed by Ver i zon were cust omers of Gr and, t he ext ent

of Ver i zon s knowl edge r egar di ng Gr and s t r ansi t i on of busi ness t o

T- Mobi l e, and whether Gr and s st or es wer e, i n f act , cl osed at t he

t i me of Ver i zon s mai l i ng. These f act ual i ssues r el at e t o t he

t er ms of t he Agr eement or , at a mi ni mum, t o t he rel at i onshi p

15 R. 15 at 13.

16 I d. at 17, 13.

-11-


12/24

est abl i shed bet ween Gr and and Ver i zon under t he Agreement . Gr and s

al l egat i ons about Ver i zon s t er mi nat i on of t hei r busi ness

r el at i onshi p may i mpl i cat e extensi ve por t i ons of t he Agr eement

concer ni ng t er mi nat i on. Ot her al l egat i ons may r equi r e

consi der at i on of t he por t i ons of t he Agr eement r egar di ng Ver i zon s

r i ght s wi t h r espect t o cust omer s obt ai ned by Gr and. Gi ven t hat a

number of f act ual di sput es ar i si ng f r omGr and s cl ai ms l i kel y wi l l

have t o be r esol ved by ref er ence t o t he Agr eement , i t i s cl ear t hat

Gr and s cl ai ms ar i se out of or r el at e to t he Agr eement and

t her ef or e f al l wi t hi n t he scope of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause.

Even wer e we l ess sure of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause s

appl i cabi l i t y to Gr and s cl ai ms, we woul d appl y the pr esumpt i on of

ar bi t r abi l i t y her e. See Ki r schhof er , 226 F. 3d at 25 ( hol di ng t hat

t he pr esumpt i on of ar bi t r abi l i t y i s appl i ed t o scope quest i ons t hat

ar i se when t he par t i es have a cont r act t hat pr ovi des f or

ar bi t r at i on of some i ssues and i t i s uncl ear whet her a speci f i c

di sput e f al l s wi t hi n t hat cont r act ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . Thi s pr esumpt i on i s par t i cul ar l y appr opr i at e wher e, as

her e, t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause i s br oadl y wor ded. AT&T Techs. , 475

U. S. at 650; see al so Gr ani t e Rock, 130 S. Ct . at 2858

( char act er i zi ng an ar bi t r at i on cl ause t hat cover ed [ a] ny cl ai m,

di sput e, or cont r over sy . . . ar i s i ng f r omor r el at i ng t o . . . t he

val i di t y, enf or ceabi l i t y, or scope of . . . t he ent i r e Agr eement

as br oad ( emphasi s added) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . An

-12-


13/24

or der t o ar bi t r at e t he par t i cul ar gr i evance shoul d not be deni ed

unl ess i t may be sai d wi t h posi t i ve assur ance t hat t he ar bi t r at i on

cl ause i s not suscept i bl e of an i nt er pr et at i on t hat cover s t he

asser t ed di sput e. Doubt s shoul d be r esol ved i n f avor of cover age.

Uni t ed St eel wor ker s of Am. v. War r i or & Gul f Navi gat i on Co. , 363

U. S. 574, 582- 83 ( 1960) . Thus, where t he l anguage of an

ar bi t r at i on cl ause i s br oad and [ i ] n t he absence of any expr ess

pr ovi si on excl udi ng a par t i cul ar gr i evance f r om ar bi t r at i on, we

t hi nk onl y t he most f or cef ul evi dence of a pur pose t o excl ude t he

cl ai mf r omar bi t r at i on can pr evai l . AT&T Techs. , 475 U. S. at 650

( quot i ng War r i or & Gul f , 363 U. S. at 584- 85) .

Gr and pr esent s us wi t h no such f or cef ul evi dence t o

r ebut t he pr esumpt i on of ar bi t r at i on. I nst ead, i t asks us t o appl y

convent i onal cont r act i nt er pr et at i on. 17 I n i t s vi ew, t he l anguage

ar i si ng out of or r el at i ng t o t hi s agr eement . . . unambi guousl y

l i mi t s t he scope of ar bi t r abl e cl ai ms t o t hose [ si t uat i ons] whi ch

depend f or r esol ut i on on i nt er pr et i ng or appl yi ng some pr ovi si on of

t he Agency Agreement . 18 Because no pr ovi si on of t he Agency

Agr eement cont r ol s, i s i mpl i cat ed, needs t o be r ead or sheds any

l i ght on t he adj udi cat i on of Gr and s mai l f r aud cl ai m, Gr and

17 Appel l ee s Br . 14.

18 I d. at 4 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

-13-


14/24

submi t s, i t s cl ai ms ar e not wi t hi n t he scope of t he ar bi t r at i on

cl ause. 19

We cannot accept Gr and s vi ew. As we di scussed

pr evi ousl y, r esol ut i on of some of t he i ssues r ai sed by Gr and s

cl ai ms may wel l r equi r e r esor t t o t he Agr eement . Moreover , Gr and s

at t empt at r ebut t i ng t he pr esumpt i on of ar bi t r abi l i t y needed t o

show t hat t he par t i es i nt ended t o excl ude t hi s t ype of di sput e f r om

t he scope of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause, see AT&T Techs. , 475 U. S. at

650, not mer el y that t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause l acked expl i ci t

l anguage cover i ng Gr and s cl ai ms. Cont r ary t o Gr and s vi ew, wher e

ar bi t r at i on cl auses i ncl uded br oad l anguage r equi r i ng ar bi t r at i on

of di sput es ar i si ng out of or r el at i ng t o par t i es cont r acts,

cour t s have f ound ar bi t r at i on appr opr i at e on a var i et y of cl ai ms

si mi l ar t o t hose pr esent ed her e. See, e. g. , Shear son/ Am. Expr ess,

I nc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220, 223, 241- 42 ( 1987) ( hol di ng t hat

par t i es coul d be compel l ed t o ar bi t r at e RI CO cl ai ms r el at i ng t o,

i nt er al i a, maki ng f al se st at ement s and omi t t i ng mat er i al f act s

wher e br oker age agr eement st at ed, any cont r over sy ar i si ng out of

or r el at i ng t o my account s, t o t r ansact i ons wi t h you f or me or t o

t hi s agr eement or t he br each t her eof , shal l be set t l ed by

ar bi t r at i on ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; cf . , e. g. ,

Commer ci al Uni on I ns. Co. v. Gi l bane Bl dg. Co. , 992 F. 2d 386,

387- 88, 391 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( hol di ng t hat def endant s Massachuset t s

19 I d. at 14.

-14-


15/24

unf ai r and decept i ve t r ade pr act i ces count er cl ai m was subj ect t o

ar bi t r at i on wher e cl ause cover ed [ a] l l cl ai ms, di sput es and ot her

mat t er s i n quest i on ar i si ng out of , or r el at i ng t o t hi s Agr eement

or t he br each t her eof ) .

I n sum, i n adopt i ng Gr and s memorandum i n opposi t i on t o

t he def endant s mot i on t o compel ar bi t r at i on, t he di st r i ct cour t

appr oved Gr and s st atement t hat Ver i zon unambi guousl y rest r i ct ed

t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause t o bat t l es over t he Agency Agr eement , and,

t her ef or e, t he pr esumpt i on of ar bi t r abi l i t y woul d not ent er i nt o

pl ay. 20 Thi s concl usi on i s unsupport ed by t he case l aw and t he

f act s of t hi s case. The br oad l anguage of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause

pr esent ed here encompasses t he di sput e descr i bed i n Gr and s

compl ai nt .

B. Ms. McCahills Ability to Invoke the Arbitration Clause

The al l egat i ons agai nst Ms. McCahi l l ar i se out of act i ons

t hat she al l egedl y t ook as part of her empl oyment by Ver i zon. She

t her ef or e want s t o avai l her sel f of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause i n t he

Agr eement si gned by her empl oyer , Ver i zon. The di st r i ct cour t , by

adopt i ng Gr and s memor andum, must be under st ood t o have rul ed t hat

t he cl ai ms agai nst Ms. McCahi l l ar e not cover ed by t he ar bi t r at i on

cl ause because she was not a par t y t o t he Agreement and because t he

ar bi t r at i on cl ause does not cal l speci f i cal l y f or ar bi t r at i ng

di sput es wi t h i ndi vi dual empl oyees. Ver i zon and Ms. McCahi l l now

20 R. 23 at 5- 6.

-15-


16/24

chal l enge t hi s det er mi nat i on. They t ake t he vi ew t hat , because

Ms. McCahi l l was act i ng as an agent of Ver i zon and t he cl ai ms

agai nst her r el ate sol el y t o her per f ormance as an empl oyee, she

i s ent i t l ed t o i nvoke t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause. 21

I n or der t o compel ar bi t r at i on of t he cl ai ms agai nst her ,

Ms. McCahi l l must est abl i sh t hat she i s ent i t l ed t o i nvoke t he

ar bi t r at i on cl ause. Sot o- Fonal l edas, 640 F. 3d at 474 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . [ T] he FAA does not r equi r e par t i es to

ar bi t r at e when t hey have not agr eed t o do so . . . . Vol t I nf o.

Sci s. , 489 U. S. at 478. [ N] or does i t pr event par t i es who do

agr ee t o ar bi t r at e f r om excl udi ng cer t ai n cl ai ms f r omt he scope of

t hei r ar bi t r at i on agr eement . I d. We r ecogni ze t hat , of cour se,

as a gener al pr oposi t i on, a cont r act cannot bi nd a nonpar t y. We

al so recogni ze, however , t hat t her e ar e except i ons al l owi ng non-

si gnat or i es t o compel ar bi t r at i on and t hat [ a] non- si gnat or y may

be bound by or acqui r e r i ght s under an arbi t r at i on agr eement under

or di nar y st at e- l aw pr i nci pl es of agency or cont r act . Rest or at i on

Pr es. Masonr y, I nc. v. Gr ove Eur . Lt d. , 325 F. 3d 54, 62 n. 2 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . 22

21 Appel l ant s Br . 24.

22 Our deci si on i n Rest or at i on Pr eser vat i on Masonr y, I nc.v. Gr ove Eur ope Lt d. , 325 F. 3d 54, 62 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , ci t eswi t h appr oval cases f r om ot her ci r cui t s acknowl edgi ng t hatnon- si gnator i es may have r i ght s under an ar bi t r at i on cont r act undercer t ai n ci r cumst ances. See i d. ( ci t i ng Gr i gson v. Cr eat i ve Ar t i st sAgency, 210 F. 3d 524, 527 ( 5t h Ci r . 2000) ; Sunki st Sof t Dr i nks,I nc. v. Sunki st Gr ower s, I nc. , 10 F. 3d 753, 757 ( 11t h Ci r . 1993) ,

-16-


17/24

Gr and s compl ai nt makes cl ear t hat Ms. McCahi l l s al l eged

act i ons wer e t aken i n her capaci t y as Ver i zon s agent or empl oyee.

She al l egedl y mai l ed ( or di r ect ed t o have mai l ed) post car ds t o t he

company s cust omers whi l e she was empl oyed f or t he company and i n

f ur t her ance of company busi ness. These al l egat i ons f or m t he sol e

basi s of l i abi l i t y agai nst Ver i zon and agai nst Ms. McCahi l l .

Gr and, i n nami ng Ms. McCahi l l i n i t s compl ai nt , i dent i f i ed her as

Di r ect or of I ndi r ect Communi cat i on, Er i n McCahi l l . 23 I t f ur t her

suggest ed t hat i t was sui ng Ms. McCahi l l i n her capaci t y as a

Ver i zon agent when i t st at ed t hat i t s cl ai ms wer e agai nst

Ms. McCahi l l and al l ot her [ Ver i zon] execut i ves who ai ded and

abet t ed her i n i ssui ng t he mai l ed announcement s. 24

Gr and put s f or war d but one argument as t o why

Ms. McCahi l l cannot i nvoke t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause: t hat t he ment i on

of empl oyees i n cer t ai n part s of t he Agr eement , combi ned wi t h the

l ack of ment i on of empl oyees i n t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause, makes cl ear

t hat t he par t i es never agr eed t hat cl ai ms agai nst empl oyees- - even

abr ogat ed by Lawson v. Li f e of t he S. I ns. Co. , 648 F. 3d 1166, 1171( 11t h Ci r . 2011) ; Hughes Masonr y Co. v. Gr eater Cl ark Cnt y. Sch.Bl dg. Cor p. , 659 F. 2d 836, 841 n. 9 ( 7t h Ci r . 1981) ) . Addi t i onal l y,i n Sour ci ng Unl i mi t ed, I nc. v. Asi mco I nt er nat i onal , I nc. , we not edt hat [ c] our t s r out i nel y recogni ze t hat ar bi t r at i on agr eement s mayr equi r e ar bi t r at i on even wher e al l par t i es t o t he di sput e di d not

si gn t he ar bi t r at i on agr eement . 526 F. 3d 38, 46 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r .2008) ( ci t i ng Zur i ch Am. I ns. Co. v. Wat t s I ndus. , I nc. , 417 F. 3d682, 687 ( 7t h Ci r . 2005) ) .

23 R. 15 at 13.

24 I d. at 18, 16.

-17-


18/24

t hose sued f or act i ons t aken wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r

empl oyment - - coul d avai l t hemsel ves of t he ar bi t r at i on agr eement .

Eval uat i ng Gr and s cont ent i ons r equi r es us t o appl y New Yor k St at e

l aw, whi ch gover ns t he i nt er pr et at i on of t he cont r act . New Yor k

St at e r equi r es t hat t he cont r act be const r ued accor di ng t o i t s

pl ai n meani ng. MHR Capi t al Par t ner s LP v. Pr esst ek, I nc. , 912

N. E. 2d 43, 47 ( N. Y. 2009) . I t per mi t s the cour t t o r egar d t he

pl ai n wor di ng of t he i nst r ument as wel l as i t s st r uct ur e t o

ascer t ai n t hat pl ai n meani ng. Ni agar a Front i er Transp. Aut h. v.

Eur o- Uni t ed Cor p. , 757 N. Y. S. 2d 174, 176 ( App. Di v. 2003) .

We have exami ned t he Agr eement f r om st em t o st ern, bot h

wi t h r espect t o i t s wor di ng and wi t h r espect t o i t s st r uct ur e. We

see no basi s f or Gr and s asser t i on. I n t he cont r act , t he par t i es

do ref er t o empl oyees i n ot her cont exts, such as ensur i ng t hat

empl oyees of Gr and are not consi dered t he empl oyees of Ver i zon.

Gi ven t he nat ur e of t he r el at i onshi p est abl i shed by t he cont r act

bet ween t he t wo compani es, i t i s not at al l sur pr i si ng t hat t hi s

consi der at i on woul d be t he f ocus of speci al at t ent i on i n t he t ext

of t he agr eement . The r emai ni ng r ef er ences ar e l i kewi se i n areas

where speci f i c r ef erence t o empl oyees woul d be expect ed. We f ai l

t o see how such r ef erences and t he absence of an expl i ci t r ef er ence

t o empl oyees i n t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause i n any way evi nce an i nt ent

on t he par t of t he par t i es t o bar empl oyees, act i ng i n t he scope of

-18-


19/24

t hei r empl oyment , f r om t he pr ot ect i on of t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause

adopt ed by t hei r empl oyer .

Ver i zon and Gr and cer t ai nl y wi shed t o have t hei r di sput es

set t l ed by ar bi t r at i on. Si nce Ver i zon coul d oper at e onl y t hr ough

t he act i ons of i t s empl oyees, i t woul d have made l i t t l e sense to

have agr eed t o arbi t r ate i f t he empl oyees coul d be sued separatel y

wi t hout r egar d t o t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause. Not abl y, cont r ar y t o

Gr and s asser t i on, t he ar bi t r at i on cl ause i s wr i t t en i n br oad

l anguage to encompass any cont r over sy or cl ai m ar i si ng out of or

r el at i ng t o t he Agr eement . Mor eover , t he par t i es ent er ed i nt o

t hi s agr eement knowi ng t hat t he l egal l andscape r ecogni zed t he

r i ght of empl oyees t o seek t he pr ot ect i on of t hei r empl oyer s

ar bi t r at i on cl auses.

I ndeed, a number of our si st er ci r cui t s have addr essed

t hi s i ssue, and al l have hel d t hat an agent i s ent i t l ed t o t he

pr ot ect i on of her pr i nci pal s ar bi t r at i on cl ause when t he cl ai ms

agai nst her are based on her conduct as an agent . 25 When t he

non- si gnator y par t y i s an empl oyee of t he si gnat or y cor por at i on and

t he under l yi ng act i on i n t he di sput e was under t aken i n t he cour se

of t he empl oyee s empl oyment , t hese ci r cui t s have f ashi oned,

25 See, e. g. , Pr i t zker v. Mer r i l l Lynch, Pi er ce, Fenner &Smi t h, I nc. , 7 F. 3d 1110, 1121 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) ; Roby v. Cor p. ofLl oyd s, 996 F. 2d 1353, 1360 ( 2d Ci r . 1993) ; Ar nol d v. Ar nol dCorp. - Pr i nt ed Commc ns f or Bus. , 920 F. 2d 1269, 1281- 82 ( 6t h Ci r .1990) ; Let i zi a v. Pr udent i al Bache Secs. , I nc. , 802 F. 2d 1185,1187- 88 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) .

-19-


20/24

uni f or ml y, a f eder al r ul e desi gned t o pr ot ect t he f eder al pol i cy

f avor i ng ar bi t r at i on. That r ul e, f ounded on gener al st at e l aw

pr i nci pl es of agency, i s t hat when a pr i nci pal i s bound under t he

t er ms of a val i d ar bi t r at i on cl ause, i t s agent s, empl oyees, and

r epr esent at i ves are al so cover ed under t he t er ms of such

agr eement s. Pr i t zker v. Mer r i l l Lynch, Pi er ce, Fenner & Smi t h,

I nc. , 7 F. 3d 1110, 1121 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) . Such a r ul e i s necessar y,

our si st er ci r cui t s have r easoned, because a cor por at e ent i t y or

ot her busi ness can onl y oper ate t hr ough i t s empl oyees and an

arbi t r at i on agr eement woul d be a meani ngl ess ar r angement i f i t s

t er ms di d not ext end t o t hem. See i d. at 1122. Any ot her r ul e, i n

t he vi ew of t hese cour t s, woul d per mi t t he par t y br i ngi ng t he

compl ai nt t o avoi d the pr act i cal consequences of havi ng si gned an

agr eement t o ar bi t r at e; nami ng t he ot her par t y s of f i cer s,

di r ect or s or empl oyees as def endant s al ong wi t h t he cor por at i on

woul d absol ve t he par t y of al l obl i gat i ons t o ar bi t r at e. See,

e. g. , Ar nol d v. Ar nol d Cor p. - Pr i nt ed Commc ns f or Bus. , 920 F. 2d

1269, 1281 ( 6t h Ci r . 1990) . I ndeed, l ong bef or e t he si gni ng of t he

cont r act i n t hi s case, our ci r cui t , al t hough not el abor at i ng t he

r ul e or t he r easons f or i t , had expr essed i t s appr oval of t he r ul e.

Hi l t i , I nc. v. Ol dach, 392 F. 2d 368, 369 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 1968) ( I f

ar bi t r at i on def enses coul d be f or ecl osed si mpl y by addi ng as a

def endant a per son not a par t y t o an ar bi t r at i on agr eement , t he

ut i l i t y of such agr eement s woul d be ser i ousl y compr omi sed. ) .

-20-


21/24

Not abl y, t he hi ghest cour t of New Yor k St at e, t he st at e whose l aw

gener al l y gover ns t hi s cont r act i n t he absence of any f eder al

pr eempt i on, has t aken t he vi ew t hat t he need t o respect t he basi c

pol i cy of t he FAA- - t he pr ot ect i on of t he agr eement t o ar bi t r at e- -

r equi r es t he use of t he f eder al r ul e ar t i cul at ed by t hese ci r cui t s.

See Hi r schf el d Pr ods. , I nc. v. Mi r vi sh, 673 N. E. 2d 1232, 1233 ( N. Y.

1996) .

The Supreme Cour t s deci si on i n Ar t hur Ander sen LLP

v. Car l i sl e, 556 U. S. 624 ( 2009) , cal l s i nt o some quest i on t he

pr opr i et y of r el yi ng on a r ul e based on f eder al l aw i n t hi s

si t uat i on. I n t hat case, Car l i sl e and hi s associ at es had consul t ed

wi t h t he account i ng f i r mAr t hur Ander sen LLP about mi ni mi zi ng t hei r

t ax l i abi l i t y. I d. at 626. On t he basi s of t hat consul t at i on,

Car l i sl e ent er ed i nt o management cont r act s wi t h Br i col age Capi t al ,

LLC. I d. These management cont r act s cont ai ned ar bi t r at i on

cl auses. I d. Af t er t he I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce det er mi ned t hat

t he t ax st r at egy was i l l egal , Car l i sl e and hi s associ at es f i l ed a

di ver si t y act i on agai nst Ar t hur Ander sen, Br i col age and ot her s.

I d. at 626- 27. Cl ai mi ng t hat equi t abl e est oppel r equi r ed Car l i sl e

and hi s associ at es t o ar bi t r ate t hese cl ai ms under t he agr eement s

wi t h Br i col age, Ar t hur Ander sen sought a st ay of t he di ver si t y

act i on pendi ng ar bi t r at i on. I d. at 627. I n t he cour se of i t s

deci si on, t he Supr eme Cour t wr ot e:

Because t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of st at e l awal l ow a cont r act t o be enf or ced by or agai nst

-21-


22/24

nonpar t i es t o the cont r act t hr oughassumpt i on, pi er ci ng t he cor por at e vei l ,al t er ego, i ncor por at i on by ref er ence,t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y theor i es, wai ver andest oppel , t he Si xt h Ci r cui t s hol di ng t hatnonpar t i es t o a cont r act ar e cat egor i cal l y

bar r ed f r om 3 r el i ef was er r or .

I d. at 631 ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng 21 Ri char d A. Lor d, Wi l l i st on

on Cont r act s 57: 19, at 183 ( 4t h ed. 2001) ) .

Car l i sl e hol ds t hat , at l east as a gener al pr i nci pl e,

st at e l aw gover ns t he i nqui r y as t o whet her a nonpar t y t o an

ar bi t r at i on agr eement can asser t t he pr ot ect i on of t he agr eement . 26

See i d. at 630- 32; Lawson v. Li f e of t he S. I ns. Co. , 648 F. 3d

1166, 1170- 71 ( 11t h Ci r . 2011) . Car l i sl e l eaves uncl ear , however ,

whet her t he Cour t i nt ended t o di st ur b t he uni f ormbody of pr ecedent

i n t he cour t s of appeal s, whi ch we j ust have exami ned, hol di ng t hat

a uni f or m f eder al r ul e i s r equi r ed wi t h r espect t o t he amenabi l i t y

26

The t ext of Ar t hur Ander sen LLP v. Car l i sl e, 556 U. S. 624( 2009) ,

l eaves somewhat uncl ear , however , whether , i n determi ni ngt he amenabi l i t y of a non- si gnat or y par t y t o an ar bi t r at i on cl ause,a cour t must consul t gener al pr i nci pl es of st at e cont r act l aw ort he pr eci se l aw of t he st ate whose l aw gover ns t he cont r act . As wej ust have not ed, t he Cour t at one poi nt speaks i n t er ms oft r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of cont r act l aw, i d. at 631, but at anot her ,i t speaks i n t er ms of t he r el evant st at e cont r act l aw, i d. at632. We have chosen t o i nt er pr et Car l i sl e as r equi r i ng r ef er encet o t he pr ovi si ons of t he appl i cabl e st at e l aw. See Awuah v.Cover al l N. Am. , I nc. , 703 F. 3d 36, 42- 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( appl yi ngMassachuset t s l aw) . I n t hi s r espect , we have vi ewed Car l i sl e as

si mpl y f ol l owi ng t he gener al pr oposi t i on t hat i n deci di ng whet heran agr eement t o arbi t r ate i s t o be enf orced, we normal l y appl yor di nar y st at e- l aw pr i nci pl es t hat gover n t he f or mat i on ofcont r acts, i ncl udi ng val i di t y, r evocabi l i t y, and enf or ceabi l i t y ofcont r act s. Bezi o v. Dr aeger , 737 F. 3d 819, 822- 23 ( 1st Ci r .2013) ; see al so Fi r st Opt i ons of Chi . , I nc. v. Kapl an, 514 U. S.938, 944 ( 1995) .

-22-


23/24

of empl oyees act i ng wi t hi n the scope of t hei r empl oyment t o t he

ar bi t r at i on cl auses i n t hei r empl oyer s cont r act s. As we have

noted ear l i er , t he cases r equi r i ng t hat t he empl oyees of a company

be bound by t he ar bi t r at i on agr eement s of t hei r empl oyer s ar e based

on t he speci f i c r at i onal e t hat such a r ul e i s necessar y to pr ot ect

t he f eder al pol i cy embodi ed i n t he FAA of f avor i ng ar bi t r at i on.

Wi t hout i t , accor di ng t o t he r at i onal e of t hose cases, a par t y

coul d f r ust r at e an ar bi t r at i on cl ause by si mpl y nami ng empl oyees as

par t y def endant s al ong wi t h the si gnat or y company i n a j udi ci al

acti on. Not hi ng i n Car l i sl e speci f i cal l y di sappr oves t he

f ashi oni ng of f eder al l aw t o avoi d t hi s speci f i c abuse. Not abl y,

at one poi nt i n Car l i sl e, t he Cour t seemi ngl y l i mi t ed t he scope of

i t s hol di ng; i t wr ot e:

We have sai d many t i mes t hat f ederal l awr equi r es that quest i ons of ar bi t r abi l i t y. . . be addr essed wi t h a heal t hy regar d f ort he f eder al pol i cy f avor i ng ar bi t r at i on. What ever t he meani ng of t hi s vaguepr escri pt i on, i t cannot possi bl y r equi r e t hedi sr egar d of st at e l aw per mi t t i ng ar bi t r at i onby or agai nst nonpar t i es t o t he wr i t t enar bi t r at i on agr eement .

556 U. S. at 630 n. 5 ( quot i ng Moses H. Cone Mem l Hosp. v. Mercury

Const r . Corp. , 460 U. S. 1, 2425 ( 1983) ) . Moreover , as we have

j ust not ed, i n Car l i sl e, t he Cour t speci f i cal l y not ed t hat t he

st at e l aw i n t hat case per mi t t ed ar bi t r at i on and was t her ef or e

compat i bl e wi t h and, i ndeed, suppor t i ve of t he f eder al pol i cy

embodi ed i n t he FAA. See i d.

-23-


24/24

We need not deci de def i ni t i vel y whet her Car l i sl e has

abr ogat ed t hi s speci f i c l i ne of f eder al cases. Even i f t he Supr eme

Cour t s deci si on i n Car l i sl e does si gnal t he abr ogat i on of t he

pr i nci pl e t hat , as a mat t er of f eder al l aw, t he empl oyees of a

si gnat or y of an ar bi t r at i on agr eement ar e pr ot ect ed by t he

agr eement , Gr and has not suggest ed any pr i nci pl e of New Yor k l aw

t hat i mpedes t he i nt er pr et at i on of t he agr eement t o pr ot ect t he

empl oyee under t he cont r act . 27 I t r el i es sol el y on t he t ext of t he

cont r act - - a t ext t hat does not suppor t t he i l l ogi cal and

i mpr act i cal vi si on t hat an empl oyee who act s sol el y wi t hi n t he

scope of her empl oyment i s not pr ot ect ed by her empl oyer s

ar bi t r at i on cl ause.

Conclusion

The di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ect l y deni ed t he mot i on by

Ver i zon and Ms. McCahi l l t o compel Gr and t o ar bi t r at e i t s cl ai ms

agai nst t hem. Accor di ngl y, we r ever se and r emand t o t he di st r i ct

cour t f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

27 As we not ed ear l i er , bef or e t he advent of Car l i sl e, t hecour t s of New Yor k St ate had r ecogni zed, emphat i cal l y, t he need f or

a uni f orm f eder al r ul e to gover n whet her an agent i s amenabl e tot he ar bi t r at i on agr eement of a pr i nci pal . See Hi r schf el d Pr ods. ,I nc. v. Mi r vi sh, 673 N. E. 2d 1232, 1233 ( N. Y. 1996) . Ther e i s noi ndi cat i on, and Gr and does not suggest , t hat New Yor k St ate woul dchoose a di f f er ent , and uni que, r ul e t o t he cont r ar y i f i t wer e t odet er mi ne, i n t he wake of Car l i sl e, t hat a f eder al r ul e was nol onger appl i cabl e.

-24-

grand wireless, inc. v. verizon wireless, inc., 1st cir. (2014)

Documents