Profitstreams, LLC v. Ameranth, Inc
Filing
27
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 1 Petition to Compel Arbitration. The Court hereby Orders the parties to arbitration, through a mutually agreeable service provider, to resolve the issues in accordance with their Agreement. Accordingly, t he Court grants Profitstreams' petition to compel arbitration in part with respect to the four enumerated issues, but denies the petition in part with respect to any other issues not currently before this Court. Also, the Court cannot appoint the AAA to arbitrate the parties' dispute. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/27/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh) (jrl).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PROFITSTREAMS, LLC,
CASE NO. 11 CV 0766 MMA (JMA)
Petitioner,
12
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PROFITSTREAMS LLC’S
PETITION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION
vs.
13
14
15
AMERANTH, INC.,
[Doc. No. 1]
Respondent.
16
On April 13, 2011, Profitstreams, LLC filed a petition to compel arbitration against
17
Ameranth, Inc. [Doc. No. 1.] Ameranth submitted its response on September 2, and Profitstreams
18
filed a reply on September 19. [Doc. Nos. 24, 25.] On September 21, 2011, the Court in its
19
discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), took the motion under submission on the papers and
20
without oral argument. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
21
DENIES IN PART Profitstreams’ petition to compel arbitration.
22
23
BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2008, Profitstreams and Ameranth entered a Second Amended and Restated
24
License Agreement (“Agreement”), under which Profitstreams obtained a license for certain
25
technology owned by Ameranth. [Doc. No. 1, Exh. A; Doc. No. 9 (under seal).] A dispute has
26
arisen between the parties regarding the scope of the Agreement. [Doc. No. 1, p.3.] Profitstreams
27
alleges it “believes that the license in the Agreement covers all of the claims” of the patents at
28
issue, whereas Ameranth “contends that the license granted in the Agreement is limited to the
-1-
11cv766
1
subset of claims practiced by the Software.” [Id. at p.1] Correspondence between counsel
2
indicates the parties discussed the issue informally, but were unable to resolve their dispute. [Doc.
3
No. 24-3, Exhs. 4-18.] Profitstreams therefore seeks to initiate arbitration proceedings as
4
contemplated by the Agreement. [Id. at Exhs. 1-15.]
5
The Agreement contains the following dispute resolution provisions:
6
14.2
Governing Law and Dispute Resolution:
7
14.2.1 . . .
8
14.2.2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, including any question regarding its existence,
validity or termination, shall first be referred to each Party’s
appointed management, and the Parties shall use reasonable
efforts to resolve such dispute.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
14.2.3 Any dispute that is not resolved as provided in the preceding
Section 14.2.2, whether before or after termination of this
Agreement, will be referred to binding arbitration under the
Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association in the city and state where the defendant party has
its headquarters. Except with respect to a breach of Section 2.5
or any other unauthorized transfer of Ameranth’s intellectual
property or proprietary rights, the arbitrator shall not be
authorized to award, and no party shall be obligated to pay to
the other Party hereunder, punitive, exemplary, consequential,
indirect, special or incidental damages or lost profits
(collectively “Special Damages”) with respect to any such
claim or controversy, nor shall any party seek Special Damages
relating to any matter under, arising out of or relating to this
Agreement in any other forum. Judgment upon the award of
the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof or such court may be asked to judicially confirm the
award and order its enforcement, as the case may be.
20
14.2.4 . . .
21
22
23
14.2.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 14,
either Party shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief in any
court of competent jurisdiction for a breach or threatened
breach of Section 13 or any infringement of such Party’s
intellectual property or proprietary rights.
24
25
26
[Doc. No. 1, Exh. A, p.16 (bold and italics in original) (underline added).]
Ultimately, the parties reached an impasse regarding which claims could be sent to
27
arbitration, and Profitstreams filed the pending petition to compel Ameranth to arbitrate their
28
dispute regarding the scope of the license. [Doc. No. 1.]
-2-
11cv766
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., governs the enforcement,
3
interpretation and validity of arbitration clauses in commercial contracts. Cape Flattery Ltd. v.
4
Titan Mar., LLC, 647 F.3d 914 *7 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury
5
Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983)). The FAA provides that arbitration agreements “shall be
6
valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or equity for the
7
revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. This language creates a presumption in favor of
8
arbitration. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614, 625 (1985);
9
Kuehner v. Dickinson & Co., 84 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1996).
10
To enforce a valid arbitration agreement, a party “may petition any United States district
11
court for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such
12
agreement.” Lansmont Corp. v. SPX Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65611 *16 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20,
13
2011) (internal marks omitted) (citing Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d
14
1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4)); In re: Virginia Van Dusen, 2011 U.S. App.
15
LEXIS 15398 *9-10 (9th Cir. July 27, 2011). “[A]s with any other contract, the parties’ intentions
16
control, but those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability.” Mitsubishi
17
Motors Corp., 473 U.S. at 626. Any doubts regarding the validity of an arbitration clause must be
18
resolved in favor of arbitration. Id. Accordingly, the party resisting arbitration bears the burden of
19
showing that the arbitration agreement is invalid or does not encompass the claims at issue. Green
20
Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92 (2000).
21
When a party files a motion to compel arbitration, the district court’s role is limited to
22
determining “(1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the
23
agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., 207 F.3d
24
1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “If the response is affirmative on both counts, then
25
the [FAA] requires the court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.”
26
Id. The FAA “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead
27
mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which
28
-3-
11cv766
1
an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Id. (citation omitted); In re: Virginia Van Dusen, 2011
2
U.S. App. LEXIS at *9-10.
3
DISCUSSION
4
Neither party challenges the validity of the arbitration agreement at issue. Rather, the
5
parties primarily dispute which claims are arbitrable, and who should decide future issues of
6
arbitrability. Accordingly, the Court assumes the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable for
7
purposes of resolving the pending petition.
8
9
To determine whether the agreement to arbitrate encompasses the parties’ dispute, the
Court must first determine the scope of the arbitration clause. Section 14.2.3 of the Agreement
10
states, in relevant part, that “any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement,
11
including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination,” that cannot be resolved by
12
the parties informally, “will be referred to binding arbitration.” [Doc. No. 1, Exh. A.] The sole
13
exception is noted in section 14.2.5, which states “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in
14
this Section 14, either Party shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief in any court of competent
15
jurisdiction for a breach or threatened breach of Section 13 or any infringement of such Party’s
16
intellectual property or proprietary rights.” [Id.]
17
Here, the parties’ underlying dispute centers on their disagreement about the scope of the
18
license Ameranth provided to Profitstreams. [See Doc. No. 1, p.1, 3.] The scope of the license
19
granted under the Agreement plainly qualifies as a dispute “arising out of” the Agreement, and is
20
therefore subject to arbitration. Likewise, Ameranth’s contention that Profitstreams has breached
21
its obligations under the Agreement “arises out of and in connection with” the Agreement. Indeed,
22
the record reveals the parties do not dispute their underlying dispute encompasses the following
23
four claims, which are subject to arbitration: (1) Profitstreams’ claim for declaratory relief as to the
24
scope of the patent license under the Agreement; (2) Profitstreams’ claim for rescission of the
25
Agreement on the ground of lack of meeting of the minds; (3) Ameranth’s claim for declaratory
26
relief as to the scope of the patent license under the Agreement; and (4) Ameranth’s claim for
27
breach of the Agreement. [Doc. No. 24, p.8-9; Doc. No. 25, p.2.]
28
///
-4-
11cv766
1
The parties were unable to successfully initiate arbitration proceedings after Ameranth
2
proposed the parties stipulate that “neither party could amend or add claims without the consent of
3
the other party.” [Doc. No. 24, p. 9; Doc. No. 24-3, Exhs. 11-15.] Profitstreams refused to agree
4
to the additional limitation, asserting, in part, that it is inconsistent with the Commercial
5
Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), specifically Rule R-6, which
6
vests the arbitrator with the authority to approve a party’s request to add or amend claims.1 [Doc.
7
No. 25, p.3.] Profitstreams therefore proposes that the parties agree to let the arbitrator determine
8
which claims could be added to the arbitration proceedings if the issue arose. [Doc. No. 24-3,
9
Exh. 13.] Ameranth declines to accept this stipulation on the ground that the Court, not the
10
11
arbitrator, should be the one to decide which issues are arbitrable. [Id.]
The Court’s ability to resolve this dispute is limited. As stated above, in determining
12
whether an order to compel arbitration should issue, the Court’s analysis is limited to two discrete
13
inquiries: “(1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the
14
agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Chiron Corp., 207 F.3d at 1130 (citations omitted).
15
Here, the answer to both questions is “yes,” as the parties agree the arbitration clause is valid and
16
enforceable, and they do not dispute that the four enumerated issues fall within the scope of the
17
arbitration provision. Accordingly, the Court is required to direct the parties to proceed with
18
arbitration in accordance with the terms of their Agreement. Id. (citation omitted); In re: Virginia
19
Van Dusen, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS at *9-10.
20
For the same reason, the Court cannot impose either party’s proposed condition in
21
connection with ordering the parties to arbitration, because the Court must enforce the arbitration
22
agreement as written. Here, the plain language of the arbitration provision does not support either
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
Section 14.2.3 states the parties agreed the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA shall
govern their arbitration proceedings. AAA Commercial Rule R-6 provides:
After filing of a claim, if either party desires to make any new or
different claim or counterclaim, it shall be made in writing and filed
with the AAA. The party asserting such a claim or counterclaim shall
provide a copy to the other party, who shall have 15 days from the date
of such transmission within which to file an answering statement with
the AAA. After the arbitrator is appointed, however, no new or
different claim may be submitted except with the arbitrator’s consent.
-5-
11cv766
1
party’s request to include limiting language regarding who may resolve questions of arbitrability
2
after arbitration is commenced. In the absence of clear and unmistakable language to the contrary,
3
“[i]t is well established that the question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to
4
arbitration, i.e., the question of arbitrability, is an issue for judicial determination.” Oracle Am.,
5
Inc. v. Myriad Group AG, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98830 *14-15 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2011)
6
(emphasis in original) (citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002); First
7
Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995) (“If . . . the parties did not agree to
8
submit the arbitrability question itself to arbitration, then the court should decide that question just
9
as it would decide any other question that the parties did not submit to arbitration”)). Although the
10
Agreement makes clear the parties agreed the Commercial Rules of the AAA would govern
11
arbitration proceedings, the record does not contain clear and unmistakable evidence that the
12
parties did not intend to submit questions of arbitrability to the courts. The parties may not now
13
condition their participation in arbitration proceedings on the other party’s acquiescence to
14
additional limitations not set forth in their Agreement.
15
In addition, the Court will not prospectively advise the parties whether additional
16
unidentified, hypothetical issues are subject to arbitration. As framed by the parties, the only
17
discernable issues are: (1) Profitstreams’ claim for declaratory relief as to the scope of the patent
18
license under the Agreement; (2) Profitstreams’ claim for rescission of the Agreement on the
19
ground of lack of meeting of the minds; (3) Ameranth’s claim for declaratory relief as to the scope
20
of the patent license under the Agreement; and (4) Ameranth’s claim for breach of the Agreement.
21
[Doc. No. 24, p.8-9; Doc. No. 25, p.2.] Any other questions of arbitrability are anticipatory,
22
undefined, and not ripe for judicial determination.
23
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Profitstreams’ petition to compel arbitration IN PART
24
with respect to the four enumerated issues, but DENIES the petition IN PART with respect to any
25
other issues not currently before this Court. Also, the Courtcannot appoint the AAA to arbitrate
26
the parties’ dispute. The Court’s role is limited to enforcement of the terms of the valid arbitration
27
agreement, which does not designate the AAA as the agreed upon arbitration service.
28
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758, 1773 (2010) (citation omitted).
-6-
11cv766
1
The Court therefore DENIES the petition with respect to Profitstreams’ request to designate the
2
AAA as the required arbitration service.
3
Lastly, the Court DENIES Profitstreams’ request for attorneys’ fees, as the Agreement
4
does not provide that Profitstreams is entitled to such recovery. Nor does Profitstreams cite any
5
authority upon which the Court might rely to impose a fee award. Accordingly, each party shall
6
bear its own fees and costs associated with the petition to compel.
7
8
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
9
Profitstreams’ petition to compel arbitration. [Doc. No. 1.] The Court hereby ORDERS the
10
parties to arbitration, through a mutually agreeable service provider, to resolve the following
11
issues in accordance with their Agreement:
12
(1)
13
14
the Agreement;
(2)
15
16
Profitstreams’ claim for declaratory relief as to the scope of the patent license under
Profitstreams’ claim for rescission of the Agreement on the ground of lack of
meeting of the minds;
(3)
17
Ameranth’s claim for declaratory relief as to the scope of the patent license under
the Agreement; and
18
(4)
19
The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case file.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ameranth’s claim for breach of the Agreement.
21
22
23
24
DATED: September 27, 2011
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
-7-
11cv766
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?