Janulewicz v. Private Placement Capital Notes II, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part Defendants' 11 Motion to Compel Arbitration and 11 Motion to Stay. Court stays further judicial proceedings pending completion of arbitration. The parties are instructed to submit a joint status report within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order, and additional joint status reports every ninety (90) days thereafter, apprising Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings. Upon completion of the arbitration proceedings, the parties shall jointly submi t to Court within fourteen (14) days, a report advising Court of the outcome of the arbitration and a request that the case be dismissed or reopened. The Clerk is instructed to administratively close the file. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/29/2017. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS A. SEAMAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 16-cv-00578-BAS-DHB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION

v.
PRIVATE PLACEMENT CAPITAL
NOTES II, LLC; ANTHONY
(TONY) HARTMAN; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the case,

20

or in the alternative, to transfer venue. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons set forth below,

21

the motion to compel is granted in part. Arbitration proceedings will be initiated in

22

the Southern District of California, and the Court will stay the case pending the

23

completion of arbitration.

24
25

BACKGROUND
A.

The Total Wealth Management Receivership Proceeding

26

This case stems from a related SEC enforcement action (“Enforcement

27

Action”) brought against Total Wealth Management, Inc. (“TWM”) and investment

28

adviser Jacob Cooper, alleging fraud in violation of Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) of
–1–
16cv578

1

the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2), and (4).1 In the

2

Enforcement Action, this Court issued a preliminary injunction against TWM and

3

Cooper, and appointed Kristen Janulewicz permanent receiver of TWM and its

4

subsidiaries and affiliates, including Altus Capital Management, LLC and the Altus

5

Funds2 (collectively, the “Receivership Entities” or “Entities”). The appointment

6

order calls for the Receiver to recover, for the benefit of creditors and investors in the

7

Receivership Entities, any and all assets that were owned by, or purchased with assets

8

of, the Receivership Entities. See Preliminary Injunction and Appointment Order,

9

SEC v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-00226-BAS-DHB (S.D.

10

Cal. Feb. 12, 2015), ECF No. 8.

11

On February 23, 2016, the Court authorized the Receiver to bring the instant

12

claim on behalf of the Receivership Entities, including the Altus Funds, against

13

Defendant Private Placement Capital Notes II, LLC (“PPCN”) and Anthony

14

Hartman, the beneficial owner and managing partner of PPCN. Pursuant to this

15

authority, on March 7, 2016 Plaintiff Receiver Kristen Janulewicz brought this claim

16

for damages and declaratory relief against PPCN and Hartman, alleging fraud, breach

17

of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent transfer. (Compl. ECF No. 1.) On June

18

7, 2016, Thomas Seaman was substituted as permanent receiver of the Receivership

19

Entities, and subsequently as plaintiff in the instant case.

20

The Receiver alleges that from approximately December 2007 to February

21

2014, the Altus Funds invested at least $24,000,000 in Defendant PPCN in the form

22

of promissory notes. (Id. ¶¶ 8–11.) The Receiver alleges that the Altus Funds’

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Complaint, SEC v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-00226-BAS-DHB (S.D.
Cal. Feb. 4, 2015), ECF No. 1.
2

The Altus Funds, which were organized by Cooper to allow investors to pool their funds, consist
of the Altus Capital Opportunity Fund and the so-called Altus Series Funds: the Altus Conservative
Portfolio Series, LP, the Altus Growth Portfolio Series, LP, the Altus Focused Growth Portfolio
Series, LP, the Altus Income Portfolio Series, LP, the Altus Moderate Growth Portfolio Series, LP,
and the Altus Moderate Portfolio Series. (Compl. ¶ 4.)
–2–
16cv578

1

investment constitutes at least 70 percent of all funds invested in PPCN, and that the

2

Receivership Entities were insolvent at the time the Altus Funds invested in PPCN,

3

or were rendered insolvent by the Altus Funds’ investment. (Id. ¶ 12.)

4

According to the Complaint, PPCN solicited investments from the Altus Funds

5

through, among other things, the dissemination of private placement memoranda

6

(“PPM”) and other written solicitations. (Id. ¶ 13.) PPCN represented that its business

7

consisted of making commercial hard money loans and acquiring distressed and

8

commercial real property. (Id. ¶ 14.) The PPMs explained that investments in PPCN

9

were made through the purchase of promissory notes (the “Notes”). According to the

10

Receiver, the Altus Funds purchased at least 221 Notes with PPCN. PPCN

11

represented that the Notes would bear interest at an annual rate of 12.5 percent, to be

12

paid semi-annually over a five-year term, after which investors could redeem the

13

Notes for full repayment of principal. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.)

14

The Receiver alleges that despite raising $24,000,000 from the Altus Funds,

15

the income derived from PPCN’s investments was insufficient to satisfy PPCN’s

16

promise to pay investors annual interest at the agreed-upon rate of 12.5 percent. (Id.

17

¶ 20.) The Receiver claims that PPCN has paid the Altus Funds a total of

18

approximately $4,570,000 in interest, and that the value of the Altus Funds’

19

investment via the Notes, including “credited interest” (i.e., interest credited but not

20

paid) is at least $34,100,000 in the aggregate. (Id. ¶ 27.)

21

In accordance with the terms of the Notes, the Receiver sent PPCN a written

22

redemption request relating to at least $16,000,000 in Notes that had reached or

23

exceeded their five-year maturity date. (Id. ¶ 31) PPCN failed to respond, and has not

24

returned any of the requested amount to the Receiver. The Receiver alleges that

25

Defendants made false representations to TWM and to the Altus Funds to induce

26

them to invest in PPCN; that PPCN breached its contractual obligations under the

27

Notes to pay principal and interest upon maturity; that Defendants were unjustly

28

enriched by their fraudulent conduct; and that the investments were fraudulent
–3–
16cv578

1

transfers. (Id. 9–14.) The Receiver seeks actual damages of at least $20,000,000,

2

punitive damages, and a declaratory judgment rescinding the Notes and ordering

3

disgorgement of funds invested in the Notes by the Altus Funds.

4

B.

The Subscription Agreement and Arbitration Clause

5

After the Receiver filed suit, Defendants PPCN and Hartman filed the instant

6

motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, or in the alternative, to transfer

7

venue. (Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 11.) Defendants argue that the Notes purchased by

8

the Altus Funds are governed by a Purchase Questionnaire and Notice Purchase

9

Agreement (together, the “Subscription Agreement”), which contain identical

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

arbitration clauses. That Arbitration Clause provides:
17.

Arbitration

Note Purchaser further agrees that any dispute regarding this Agreement
or Note Purchaser’s investment in the Company [i.e., PPCN] . . .
including any claim which is made against any placement agent or
broker-dealer involved in the offer or sale of the Note, shall be resolved
by arbitration which shall be the sole forum for resolution of any such
disputes. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, any such proceedings
shall be brought in Greenwood Village, Colorado pursuant to the Rules
and Code of Arbitration of the America [sic] Arbitration Association,
except that if a bona fide claim is made against the Company, and a
placement agent or broker-dealer is named in connection with such
claim, then such claim shall be brought pursuant to the Rules and Code
of Arbitration of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(Mot. to Compel, Exh. 1, 1-54, ECF No. 11-3.)
The Subscription Agreements also contain a forum selection clause that
provides:
18. Governing Law; Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with,
the substantive laws of the State of Colorado without reference to
Colorado conflict or choice of law provisions. Actions or proceedings
litigated in connection with this Agreement, if any, shall be conducted
exclusively in the state and federal courts located in the County of
Arapahoe, State of Colorado.

28
–4–
16cv578

1

(Mot. to Compel, Exh. 1, 1-54, ECF No. 11-3.)

2

Citing the Arbitration Clause, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration,

3

requesting the Court to compel arbitration in Colorado, or transfer the case to

4

Colorado pursuant to the forum selection clause. The Receiver opposes, arguing that

5

although the Subscription Agreements contain an Arbitration Clause, the Notes

6

themselves do not, and that it would be unconscionable to bind the Receiver to an

7

arbitration agreement that does not appear on the face of the Notes. (ECF No. 14.)

8

The Receiver also contends that forcing the Receiver to litigate or arbitrate the claims

9

in Colorado would increase the costs and burden on the Receiver and the receivership

10
11

estate, ultimately harming creditors and the defrauded investors. (Id.)
LEGAL STANDARD

12

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies to arbitration agreements in any

13

contract affecting interstate commerce. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S.

14

105, 119 (2001); 9 U.S.C. § 2. Under the FAA, arbitration agreements “shall be valid,

15

irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for

16

the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. This provision reflects both a “liberal

17

federal policy favoring arbitration” and the “fundamental principle that arbitration is

18

a matter of contract.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011)

19

(internal citations omitted). An arbitration agreement may be invalidated by

20

“generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.”

21

Rent–A–Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68 (2010) (citation omitted).

22

A party to an arbitration agreement may bring a motion in federal district court

23

to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 4. In

24

deciding whether to compel arbitration, a court generally must determine two

25

threshold issues of arbitrability: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate,

26

and (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Brennan v. Opus

27

Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). If there is a valid

28

agreement to arbitrate, and that agreement covers the dispute, the court must compel
–5–
16cv578

1

arbitration. Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th

2

Cir. 2004).

3

Threshold issues of arbitrability are presumptively for the district court to

4

decide. See Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 1122–23 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations

5

omitted). However, parties can delegate the power to decide arbitrability to the

6

arbitrator through “clear and unmistakable” evidence of agreement to do so. Brennan,

7

796 F.3d at 1130. In determining whether the parties delegated arbitrability to the

8

arbitrator, the court applies federal arbitrability law “absent clear and unmistakable

9

evidence that the parties agreed to apply non-federal arbitrability law.” Cape Flattery

10

Ltd. v. Titan Mar., LLC, 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

11

“[T]he party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at

12

issue are unsuitable for arbitration.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.–Ala. v. Randolph, 531

13

U.S. 79, 91 (2000) (citation omitted). A court must defer to arbitration “unless it may

14

be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an

15

interpretation that covers the asserted dispute,” and “doubts should be resolved in

16

favor of coverage.” AT&T Tech, Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643,

17

650 (1986).

18
19

DISCUSSION
A.

Delegation of Arbitrability

20

The Court first addresses who—an arbitrator or the Court—should resolve the

21

parties’ disagreement concerning the scope and validity of the Arbitration Clause.3

22

The Receiver asks the Court to find that the Arbitration Clause is either inapplicable

23

to the dispute at issue or unenforceable due to unconscionability. Defendants

24

emphasize that the parties agreed to arbitrate all disputes regarding the Subscription

25
26
27
28

3

Where, as here, the parties have not provided clear and unmistakable evidence of agreement to
apply non-federal arbitrability law, the question of arbitrability is determined by federal law.
Nonetheless, even if the Court applied Colorado state law, the analysis would be the same. See
Ahluwalia v. QFA Royalties, LLC, 226 P.3d 1093, 1098–99 (Colo. 2009).
–6–
16cv578

1

Agreement and the Altus Funds’ investments in PPCN, suggesting that questions

2

regarding the validity and application of the Arbitration Clause are for the arbitrator

3

in the first instance.

4

As explained above, parties can delegate questions of arbitrability where there

5

is clear and unmistakable evidence of agreement to do so. In Brennan v. Opus Bank,

6

the Ninth Circuit held that incorporation of the American Arbitration Association

7

(“AAA”) Rules into an arbitration agreement “constitutes clear and unmistakable

8

evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.” 796 F.3d 1125,

9

1130 (9th Cir. 2015). In dicta, the Brennan court noted that there is no requirement

10

that the parties be sophisticated or that the contract be a commercial contract before

11

a court may conclude that incorporation of the AAA Rules is clear and unmistakable

12

evidence of intent to arbitrate arbitrability. Id. at 1130–31.

13

Here, the Arbitration Clause provides in part: “Note Purchaser further agrees

14

that any dispute regarding this Agreement or Note Purchaser’s investment in the

15

Company . . . shall be resolved by arbitration which shall be the sole forum for

16

resolution of any such disputes. . . . [A]ny such proceedings shall be brought . . .

17

pursuant to the Rules and Code of Arbitration of the America [sic] Arbitration

18

Association[.]” Neither party disputes that the reference to the “Rules and Code of

19

Arbitration of the America Arbitration Association” is to the AAA Commercial

20

Rules. Within those Rules, Rule 7(a) states that “The arbitrator shall have the power

21

to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the

22

existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.” AAA Commercial Rule

23

7(a) (effective as of June 1, 2009).4 This Rule delegates all jurisdictional questions,

24

including arbitrability, to the arbitrator. Thus, by incorporating the AAA Rules into

25
26
27
28

The October 1, 2013 version of AAA Commercial Rule 7(a) similarly states: “The arbitrator shall
have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the
existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or
counterclaim.”
–7–
4

16cv578

1

their arbitration agreement, the parties have clearly and unmistakably delegated the

2

question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Brennan, 796 F.3d at 1130; Zenelaj v.

3

Handybook Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 968, 974 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“The Court finds that the

4

Parties in this case clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to

5

the arbitrator when they expressly incorporated the AAA Rules into their

6

Agreement.”). The Receiver’s objections regarding the scope and validity of the

7

Arbitration Clause must be referred to the arbitrator.5

8

B.

Proper Venue for Arbitration

9

Having found that the parties agreed to refer the question of arbitrability to the

10

arbitrator, the Court must now determine the proper forum for the arbitration.

11

Defendants contend that arbitration should take place in Colorado pursuant to the

12

terms of the Arbitration Clause (Mot. to Compel 2:6–8), while the Receiver argues

13

that under Ninth Circuit law, arbitration must take place in the Southern District of

14

California (Opp’n 12:4–7).

15

The resolution of this issue is not as clear-cut as it may seem. The problem

16

stems from language within the FAA that, in certain cases, leads to contradictory

17

conclusions regarding the proper forum for arbitration. Section 4 of the FAA provides

18

that “upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the

19

failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the

20

parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9

21

U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added). Here, the terms of the agreement call for arbitration in

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

The Receiver requests that if the Court finds the Arbitration Clause applicable to the Notes, the
Receiver be given leave to amend his Complaint to allege that the Arbitration Clause was procured
by fraud. This request is misplaced, and in any event, would not change the Court’s analysis. Here,
the parties have clearly and unmistakably delegated questions regarding the existence, scope, and
validity of the Arbitration Clause to the arbitrator in the first instance. Only if the Receiver were
challenging the validity of the delegation provision itself would the Court address the Receiver’s
fraudulent inducement challenge. See Brennan, 796 F.3d at 1133 (citing Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S.
at 72–74). He has not done so. Because the Receiver challenges the entire Arbitration Clause, rather
than the delegation provision specifically, the validity and enforceability of the Arbitration Clause
is a matter for the arbitrator. Id.
–8–
16cv578

1

Colorado. However, § 4 also states that “[t]he hearing and proceedings, under such

2

agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing

3

such arbitration is filed.” 9 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added). Here, that district is the

4

Southern District of California. Thus, the plain language of the FAA presents a

5

dilemma where the terms of the arbitration agreement provide for arbitration in one

6

location (here, Colorado), but the motion to compel was filed in a different location

7

(here, the Southern District of California).

8

The Ninth Circuit resolved this dilemma in a 1941 decision in Continental

9

Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, 118 F.2d 967 (9th Cir. 1941). In Continental Grain, the

10

court held that the right of arbitration is limited to the district in which the motion to

11

compel is filed. Id. at 968–69. The Continental Grain court explained that because

12

private arbitration agreements could not be enforced prior to the passage of the FAA,

13

section 4’s requirement that arbitration be held in the district in which the motion to

14

compel was filed should be read as a condition that Congress placed on the right to

15

enforce private arbitration agreements in federal court. Id. at 969. More recent Ninth

16

Circuit decisions have indirectly confirmed the Continental Grain holding, see, e.g.,

17

Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 781, 785 (9th Cir. 2001)

18

(stating that “by its terms, section 4 . . . confines the arbitration to the district in which

19

the petition to compel is filed”), and district courts in this Circuit regularly find that

20

section 4 of the FAA limits a court to ordering arbitration within the district in which

21

the petition to compel was filed. Bencharsky v. Cottman Transmission Sys., LLC, 625

22

F. Supp. 2d 872, 883–84 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (holding that Continental Grain required

23

the court to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California even though the

24

parties designated Pennsylvania as the forum for arbitration); Homestead Lead Co.

25

of Mo. v. Doe Run Res. Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (following

26

Continental Grain and compelling arbitration in the Northern District of California

27

even though the parties designated Missouri as the arbitration forum), but see

28

Lexington Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D. Haw. 2011) (opting
–9–
16cv578

1

to transfer the case to the forum specified in the parties’ arbitration agreement, rather

2

than grant the motion to compel, because Continental Grain would have required the

3

court to override the parties’ contractually-designated arbitration forum).

4

To be sure, there are drawbacks to the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of section

5

4. Foremost among them is that a party may avoid arbitrating in the agreed upon

6

forum simply by filing suit in a different district. As the Seventh Circuit noted,

7

requiring arbitration to be held in the district in which a motion to compel is filed

8

“could lead to the parties racing to different courthouses to obtain what each thinks

9

is the most convenient forum for it, in disregard of its contractual obligations.” Snyder

10

v. Smith, 736 F.2d 409, 419–20 (7th Cir. 1984). For this and other reasons, other

11

circuits have rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach and instead have held that a district

12

court lacks authority to compel arbitration in its own district if the arbitration

13

agreement specifies a different district. See, e.g., Ansari v. Qwest Commc’ns Corp.,

14

414 F.3d 1214, 1220 (10th Cir. 2005) (outlining approaches of various circuit courts

15

of appeal). This approach gives primacy to the parties’ contractually-designated

16

arbitration forum.

17

Although skepticism of the Continental Grain approach is fair, the case

18

remains controlling authority in this Circuit. Homestead Lead Co., 282 F. Supp. 2d

19

at 1144 (“Absent new guidance from the Ninth Circuit . . . the court is precluded from

20

ordering arbitration in the contractually-designated forum[.]”). Thus, the Court is

21

limited to ordering arbitration in the district in which the motion to compel was

22

brought—that is, the Southern District of California. Accordingly, the Court grants

23

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, but will require arbitration proceedings to

24

be initiated in the Southern District of California.

25

C.

Motion to Transfer Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

26

Finally, Defendants request that if the Court does not compel arbitration in

27

Colorado, the Court transfer the case to the District of Colorado pursuant to the forum

28

selection clause in the Subscription Agreement. (Mot. to Compel 9:17–10:14.) The
– 10 –
16cv578

1

Receiver argues that transferring the case to the District of Colorado would dissipate

2

the assets of the receivership estate, leaving less funds available to the creditors and

3

defrauded investors. (Opp’n 10:24–28.)

4

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a party may seek to transfer a case “to any other

5

district or division where it might have been brought or . . . to which all parties have

6

consented.” In considering a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the court considers

7

public factors relating to “the interest of justice” and private factors relating to “the

8

convenience of parties and witnesses,” and decides whether the balance of factors

9

favors transfer. Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of

10

Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013).

11

However, the analysis changes where a party brings a § 1404(a) motion based

12

on a valid forum selection clause.6 Where, as here, a § 1404(a) motion is premised on

13

a valid forum selection clause, the court disregards entirely the plaintiff’s choice of

14

forum and the parties’ private interests, and instead considers only public interest

15

factors. Id. at 581–82. Such factors may include the administrative difficulties

16

flowing from court congestion and any local interest in the controversy. Id. at 581,

17

n.6 (citation omitted). In Atlantic Marine, the Supreme Court emphasized that public

18

interest factors will “rarely” defeat a transfer motion, and that “forum-selection

19

clauses should control except in unusual cases.” Id. at 582. Plaintiff bears the burden

20

of showing that transfer to the contractually-designated forum is unwarranted. Id. at

21

581.

22

The Court finds this is the rare and unusual case where public interest factors

23

defeat transfer to the contractually-designated forum. First, transferring this case to

24

the District of Colorado would run counter to the core purpose of a federal

25
26
27
28

The Receiver argues unconvincingly that the forum selection clause is “irrelevant to this dispute.”
(Opp’n 12.) This falls far short of the requisite “strong showing” needed to find a forum selection
clause invalid. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). Therefore, the Court
finds the forum selection clause valid and proceeds accordingly.
– 11 –
6

16cv578

1

receivership—to preserve assets for the benefit of creditors and defrauded investors.

2

See SEC v. Wencke, 783 F.2d 829, 837 n.9 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The primary purpose of

3

allowing courts to establish receiverships in securities fraud actions is to prevent

4

further dissipation of the assets of the defrauded investors[.]”). As the Receiver

5

correctly notes, an order by this Court directing the parties to litigate or arbitrate this

6

case in Colorado would increase the expense and burden on the Receiver and thereby

7

decrease the funds available to investors and creditors. The Receiver has been duly

8

appointed to serve an important public function; forcing him to incur expenses that

9

would ultimately be drawn from assets of the receivership estate would substantially

10

undermine that function.

11

Second, the Southern District of California has a strong local interest in this

12

controversy. The SEC Enforcement Action from which this case stems was filed in

13

this District. The Receivership Entities’ principal places of business are in this

14

District. The largest concentration of defrauded investors is in this District. The Court

15

raises these points not to suggest this District is a more convenient forum7, but rather

16

to emphasize that the fallout and damage from the alleged fraudulent conduct is

17

overwhelmingly concentrated in this District, as opposed to the District of Colorado.

18

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court finds that this District’s interest in

19

protecting creditors and local investors substantially outweighs Colorado’s interest in

20

regulating Defendants’ conduct.

21

In sum, although public interest factors will only rarely defeat a § 1404(a)

22

motion to transfer based on a forum selection clause, the Court finds that the

23

relationship of this case to the Total Wealth Management receivership proceeding,

24

the need to protect and preserve the assets of defrauded investors, and the strong local

25

interest in the controversy, demonstrate that a transfer to the contractually-designated

26
27

“Convenience of parties and witnesses” is a private interest consideration that is irrelevant to a §
1404(a) analysis involving a forum selection clause. Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581–82.
– 12 –
7

28

16cv578

1

forum of Colorado is unwarranted.

2

D.

Stay or Dismissal

3

The FAA provides that when the claims asserted by a party are “referable to

4

arbitration,” the court shall “stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been

5

had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, “[w]here

6

an arbitration clause is broad enough to cover all of a plaintiff’s claims, the court may

7

compel arbitration and dismiss the action.” Hopkins & Carley, ALC v. Thomson Elite,

8

No. 10–CV–05806–LHK, 2011 WL 1327359, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011).

9

Here, the threshold issue of arbitrability has yet to be determined. Thus, since

10

there is at least a possibility the arbitrator may find the claims unsuitable for

11

arbitration, the Court will stay rather than dismiss this case. Capelli Enters., Inc. v.

12

Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-cv-03401-EJD, 2017 WL 130284, at *5 (N.D.

13

Cal. Jan. 13, 2017).

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion

16

to compel arbitration and STAYS further judicial proceedings pending completion of

17

arbitration. Arbitration proceedings will be initiated in the Southern District of

18

California.

19

The parties are instructed to submit a joint status report to the Court within

20

ninety days of the date of this Order, and additional joint status reports every ninety

21

days thereafter, apprising the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings. Upon

22

completion of the arbitration proceedings, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court,

23

within fourteen days, a report advising the Court of the outcome of the arbitration,

24

and a request that the case be dismissed or reopened.

25

The Clerk is instructed to administratively close the file. Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d

26

1290 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an order administratively closing a case removes

27

the case from the court’s active docket, but has no jurisdictional effect).

28

//
– 13 –
16cv578

1

//

2

//

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 29, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
– 14 –
16cv578