Bank of New York Mellon v. Christopher Communities at Southern Highlands Golf Club Home et al

Filing 165

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 92 the HOA's motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lahrses' cross claims against the HOA and Kupperlin be, and the same hereby ar e, DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 127 the Lahrses' motion for partial summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 130 First 100 and Bloom's motion to compel arbitration be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lahrses' claims against First 100 and Bloom be, and the same hereby are, STAYED pending the close of arbitration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report or stipulation of dismissal within ten (10) days after the close of arbitration. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/9/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-1033 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
CHRISTOPHER COMMUNITIES AT
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is cross-defendant Christopher Communities at Southern

15

Highlands Golf Club Homeowners Association’s (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss cross-claimant

16

Alan and Theresa Lahrs as Trustees of the Lahrs Family Trust’s (the “Lahrses”) answer to

17

complaint, cross claims, and third-party complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 92).

18

Cross-defendant Kupperlin Law Group, LLC (“Kupperlin) joined in the motion. (ECF No. 93).

19

The Lahrses filed a response (ECF No. 99), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 101).

20

Also before the court is third-party plaintiff Lahrses’ motion for partial summary judgment

21

for declaration of title insurance coverage.

22

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”) and Lawyers Title Company

23

of Nevada (“Lawyers Title”) filed a response (ECF No. 142), to which the Lahrses replied (ECF

24

No. 144).

(ECF No. 127).

Third-party defendants

25

Also before the court is cross-defendant First 100, LLC’s (“First 100”) and third-party

26

defendant Jay Bloom’s (“Bloom”) motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 130). The Lahrses

27

filed a limited opposition. (ECF No. 133).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

I.

Facts

2

This case has been thoroughly litigated, and its procedural posture is staggering. As

3

relevant to this order, the instant action arises from a foreclosure sale of 11966 Port Labelle Drive,

4

Las Vegas, Nevada 89141. (ECF No. 1 at 3). The prior owners of 11966 Port Labelle Drive were

5

delinquent on their HOA assessments. (ECF No. 74 at 2). Red Rock Financial Services, acting

6

on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien. Id.

7

Pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement, the HOA assigned its right to payment on the

8

delinquency to First 100 and retained its lien on the property. Id. Also pursuant to the purchase

9

and sale agreement, Kupperlin replaced Red Rock Financial Services as the HOA’s agent, and the

10

HOA promised that it would not send anyone to the foreclosure sale to bid “in any amount in

11

excess of the Opening Bid” of $99. (ECF No. 59-2 at 9).

12

“Kupperlin was instructed not to postpone any foreclosure sale, even if few or no bidders

13

were present.” (ECF No. 59-2 at 9). As a result, Kupperlin foreclosed on the property. (ECF No.

14

74 at 2–3). First 100 purchased the for $151. Id. at 3.

15

The court has already granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff Bank of New

16

York Mellon (“BNYM”) and quieted title in its favor; thus, its first priority lien still encumbers

17

the property. See generally id.

18

The Lahrses filed a third-party complaint against Jay Bloom (“Bloom”) and crossclaims

19

against the HOA, Kupperlin, and First 100. (ECF No. 75). The Lahrses allege intentional and

20

negligent misrepresentation against First 100, Bloom, and Kupperlin; fraudulent concealment

21

against First 100 and Bloom; fraud in the inducement against First 100; civil conspiracy against

22

First 100, Bloom, Kupperlin, and the HOA; and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

23

dealing against First 100. Id.

24

The Lahrses’ also filed a third-party complaint against Commonwealth and Lawyers Title

25

seeking a judicial declaration of insurance coverage and alleging breach of contract and breach of

26

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 114).

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

A. Motion to dismiss

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

4

437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case

5

unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of Colville

6

Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction must

7

exist at the time an action is commenced. Mallard Auto. Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp.

8

2d 949, 952 (D. Nev. 2004).

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows defendants to seek dismissal of a claim or

10

action for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Dismissal under Rule

11

12(b)(1) is appropriate if the complaint, considered in its entirety, fails to allege facts on its face

12

sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)

13

Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984–85 (9th Cir. 2008).

14

Although the defendant is the moving party in a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff is

15

the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving

16

that the case is properly in federal court to survive the motion. McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264

17

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189

18

(1936)). More specifically, the plaintiff’s pleadings must show “the existence of whatever is

19

essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if [plaintiff] does not do so, the court, on having the defect

20

called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be

21

corrected by amendment.” Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926).

22

In moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the challenging party may either make a “facial

23

attack,” confining the inquiry to challenges in the complaint, or a “factual attack” challenging

24

subject matter on a factual basis. Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2

25

(9th Cir. 2003). For a facial attack, the court assumes the truthfulness of the allegations, as in a

26

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft Indus., Inc., 813

27

F.2d 1553, 1559 (9th Cir. 1987). By contrast, when presented as a factual challenge, a Rule

28

12(b)(1) motion can be supported by affidavits or other evidence outside of the pleadings. United

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1

States v. LSL Biotechs., 379 F.3d 672, 700 n.14 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing St. Clair v. City of Chicago,

2

880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989)).

3

B. Motion for summary judgment

4

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when the pleadings,

5

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,

6

show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a

7

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is

8

“to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

9

323–24 (1986).

10

For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor

11

of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be

12

entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts

13

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.

14

In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. The moving

15

party must first satisfy its initial burden. “When the party moving for summary judgment would

16

bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a

17

directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has

18

the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to

19

its case.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000)

20

(citations omitted).

21

By contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense,

22

the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential

23

element of the non-moving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed

24

to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case on which that

25

party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–24. If the moving

26

party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not

27

consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159–

28

60 (1970).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-4-

1

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party

2

to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith

3

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the

4

opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient

5

that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing

6

versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626,

7

631 (9th Cir. 1987).

8

In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on

9

conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

10

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the

11

pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue

12

for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

13

At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the

14

truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

15

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all

16

justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the

17

nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be

18

granted. See id. at 249–50.

19

C. Motion to compel arbitration

20

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides for the enforcement of arbitration

21

agreements in any contract affecting interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. § 2; AT&T Mobility LLC v.

22

Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). A party to an arbitration agreement can invoke his or her

23

rights under the FAA by petitioning federal courts to direct that “arbitration proceed in the manner

24

provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. When courts grant a petition to compel arbitration,

25

the FAA requires stay of litigation “until such arbitration has been had[.]” Id. at § 3.

26

The FAA embodies a clear policy in favor of arbitration. AT&T Mobility, 563 U.S. at 339.

27

Courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements. Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.,

28

552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008). “[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-5-

1

resolved in favor of arbitration.” See Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir.

2

1999) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)).

3

The FAA leaves no place for courts to exercise discretion, but instead mandates courts to enforce

4

arbitration agreements. See Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985).

5

However, arbitration is a “matter of contract” and the FAA does not require a party to

6

arbitrate “any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds,

7

Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (quotes and citation omitted). When determining whether a party should

8

be compelled to arbitrate claims: courts engage in a two-step process. Chiron Corp. v. Ortho

9

Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The court must determine: (1) whether

10

a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and if it does; (2) whether the agreement encompasses the

11

dispute at issue. Id.

12

III.

13

Discussion
A. Motion to dismiss

14

The HOA and Kupperlin move to dismiss on two grounds: (1) the court lacks diversity

15

jurisdiction and (2) the court should not assert supplemental jurisdiction over the Lahrses’ claims.1

16

(ECF No. 92). Indeed, the HOA, Kupperlin, and the Lahrses are all residents of Nevada. (ECF

17

No. 1 at 2–3). Accordingly, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the Lahrses’ claims because

18

the parties are not diverse. Thus, the court must determine whether supplemental jurisdiction over

19

the Lahrses’ cross claims is proper.

20

“In order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction . . . it must first have

21

original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,

22

545 U.S. 546, 554 (2005). For a United States district court to have diversity jurisdiction under

23

28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must

24

exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v.

25

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). “Incomplete diversity destroys

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

The court will not address the HOA and Kupperlin’s argument that the Lahrses’ answer,
cross claims, and third-party complaint were not timely filed. (ECF No. 92). The argument was
resolved by the Lahrses’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 80), which the court granted (ECF
No. 81).
1

-6-

1

original jurisdiction with respect to all claims, so there is nothing to which supplemental

2

jurisdiction can adhere.” Exxon Mobil Corp., 545 U.S. at 554.

3

The court invokes its “full Article III power to dispose of an entire action before the court

4

which comprises but one constitutional case” by asserting supplemental jurisdiction over related

5

claims. Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted). Such claims “may be

6

viewed as part of the same case because they ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.’”

7

See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 337 (2006) (quoting United Mine Workers v.

8

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). This principle is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a):

9
10
11
12
13

In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district
courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related
to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

14

First, the Lahrses’ cross claims do not “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,”

15

so 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is not grounds for the court to assert jurisdiction over them. BNYM’s

16

claims concerned the HOA foreclosure sale itself, whereas the Lahrses’ cross claims stem from

17

the subsequent sale from First 100 to the Lahrses. Compare (ECF No. 1), with (ECF No. 75).

18

The Lahrses allege intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,

19

fraud in the inducement, civil conspiracy, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

20

(ECF No. 75). All of these claims arise from post-foreclosure conduct by various parties and

21

representations made to the Lahrses in a subsequent conveyance. Id. Although tangentially related

22

to the foreclosure sale, the circumstances of the Lahrses’ purchase of the property from First 100

23

are distinct from the prior sale to First 100.

24

Further, assuming arguendo that the Lahrses’ claims fall within 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), 28

25

U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides circumstances when federal district courts may decline to exercise

26

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim, including when “the district court has dismissed all claims

27

over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-7-

1

The court had original diversity jurisdiction over BNYM’s claim against the HOA,

2

Kupperlin, and the Lahrses. (See ECF No. 1). But, “[w]hen all federal-law claims are eliminated

3

before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—

4

judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise

5

jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Phanthalasy v. Hawaiian Agents, Inc., No. CV

6

18-00285 JAO-WRP, 2019 WL 2305133, at *7 (D. Haw. May 30, 2019) (quotation marks omitted)

7

(quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); Acri v. Varian Assocs.,

8

114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)). Thus, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court

9

dismissed BNYM’s claim when it entered judgment in favor of BNYM.

(ECF No. 74).

10

Consequently, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is also grounds for this court to decline to exercise

11

supplemental jurisdiction over the Lahrses’ claims.

12
13

Accordingly, the HOA and Kupperlin’s motion to dismiss for lack of diversity is granted.
B. Motion for partial summary judgment

14

The Lahrses’ motion for partial summary judgment seeks a judicial declaration that their

15

title insurance policy covers the foreclosure sale. (ECF No. 127). The Lahrses argue that their

16

title insurance policy does not contain an “exception from coverage” pertaining to BNYM’s lien

17

claim arising out of the foreclosure sale. Id. Indeed, the parties agree that the title insurance policy

18

did not contain the exception when it was prepared on December 18, 2013, or when it was sent

19

again on March 31, 2014. (ECF Nos. 127 at 5; 142 at 9–10). However, Commonwealth and

20

Lawyers Title assert that the “[t]he omission of that [e]xception from the copy of the [p]olicy sent

21

to them initially resulted from a drafting error that occurred when the [p]olicy was prepared.”

22

(ECF No. 142 at 5).2

23

“Reformation is available as an equitable remedy to a party seeking to alter a written

24

instrument which, because of a mutual mistake of fact, fails to conform to the parties’ previous

25

understanding or agreement.” Helms Constr. & Dev. Co. v. State, 634 P.2d 1224, 1225 (Nev.

26

1981). Reformation is available “[w]here the agreement as reduced to writing omits or contains

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

To that end, Commonwealth and Lawyers have filed an amended answer to Lahrses’
third-party complaint and a counterclaim seeking reformation of the policy. (ECF No. 146).
2

-8-

1

terms or stipulations contrary to the common intention of the parties.” Hearne v. Marine Ins. Co.,

2

87 U.S. 488, 490 (1874). If there is such an omission, “the instrument will be corrected so as to

3

make it conform to their real intent.” Id.

4

Reformation is not available where there is simply ambiguity. Ambiguity is, by definition,

5

“[d]oubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention, as in a contractual term or statutory

6

provision; indistinctness of signification, esp. by reason of doubleness of interpretation.” BLACK’S

7

LAW DICTIONARY 97 (10th ed. 2009). Therefore, ambiguity exists where a term is subject to two

8

reasonable interpretations.

9

ambiguous treaty provision . . . is susceptible of two plausible, and reasonable, interpretations . . .

10

.”); Nay v. State, 167 P.3d 430, 433 (Nev. 2007) (“Ambiguity is found where the statutory language

11

lends itself to two or more reasonable interpretations.” (internal quotation marks and footnote

12

citation omitted)); McKay v. Board of Supervisors, 730 P.2d 438, 442 (Nev. 1986) (“Where a

13

statute is capable of being understood in two or more senses by reasonably informed persons, the

14

statute is ambiguous.”).

Accord Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 719(2006) (“[A]n

15

In sum, “[r]eformation should be used to correct errors in expressing the terms of a contract

16

and should not be used to create new ones.” 25 Corp. v. Eisenman Chem. Co., 709 P.2d 164, 171

17

(Nev. 1985).

18

The Lahrses argue that “‘black letter’ law in Nevada” allocates the risk of error to the

19

insurance company “whether you call it an ambiguity or a ‘mistake’ in coverage.” (ECF No. 144

20

at 8). The Lahrses double-down on the argument, contending that “[t]he legal arguments of

21

Commonwealth and Lawyers Title here based on the ‘objective manifestations’ and ‘mutual

22

intention of the parties’ are hogwash indeed.” Id. Yet, the Lahrses’s argument relies on the

23

erroneous conflation of “mistakes”3 with “ambiguity.”

24

In this case, the terms of the exclusion are not subject to two reasonable interpretations and

25

are therefore not ambiguous. Indeed, Mr. Lahrs testified at his deposition that he understood the

26

“restrictions”—exceptions—in the policy were “things that the title insurance company is not

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

A mistake is “[a]n error, misconception, or misunderstanding; an erroneous belief.”
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1153 (10th ed. 2009).
3

-9-

1

willing to cover[.]” (ECF No. 142-4 at 9). Mr. Lahrs went on to testify that exception number 524

2

would mean that BNYM’s lien claim was not covered by the Lahrses’ title insurance policy. Id.

3

at 12–13. Mr. Lahrs testified that exception number 52 was in the third amended preliminary

4

report. Id. Mr. Lahrs testified that exception number 52 would be part of the final title policy. Id.

5

at 13.

6

On the other hand, Commonwealth and Lawyers Title informed the Lahrses that “items

7

41–51 & 54–62 will be removed from the final title policy.” (ECF No. 127 at 5). Neither

8

Commonwealth nor Lawyers Title informed the Lahrses that exception number 52 would be

9

removed from the policy. Id. Nonetheless, the policy failed to include the exception. Id. at 6.

10

This is necessarily an omission—a mistake—for which reformation is an available remedy.

11

As a result, there is no ambiguity regarding what the exception meant. There is only a

12

question of whether the exception should have been in the policy as the parties discussed.

13

Commonwealth and Lawyers Title have presented evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of

14

material fact regarding whether the policy ought to be reformed to conform with the parties’ actual

15

intent.

16
17

Accordingly, the Lahrses’ motion for partial summary judgment is denied.
C. Motion to compel arbitration

18

In addressing a motion to compel arbitration, the court’s role is “limited to determining (1)

19

whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses

20

the dispute at issue.” Chiron Corp., 207 F.3d at 1130 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4; Simula, Inc., 175 F.3d

21

at 719–20).

22

The Ninth Circuit interprets arbitration agreements liberally and in favor of “the strong

23

federal policy favoring arbitral dispute resolution.” See Simula, Inc., 175 F.3d at 720. “A court

24

will not ordinarily except a controversy from coverage of a valid arbitration clause unless it may

25

be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible [to] an interpretation

26

that covers the asserted dispute.” Bosinger v. Phillips Plastics Corp., 57 F. Supp. 2d 986, 990

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

4

Exception number 52 was discussed in the preliminary reports, but became exception
number 48 when incorporated into the policy.
- 10 -

1

(S.D. Cal. June 29, 1999) (quoting Marchese v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 734 F.2d 414, 419

2

(9th Cir. 1984)) (internal quotations omitted).

3

The Lahrses are former members of First 100 and, as part of their membership, executed a

4

binding operating agreement. (ECF No. 130 at 3). The operating agreement contained a binding

5

arbitration clause, which provided that “[a]ny dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or

6

relating to this [a]greement or the breach thereof shall solely be settled by arbitration under the

7

Commercial Arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’).” Id. at 3–4).

8

First 100 and Bloom allege that the Lahrses claims all “arise under an unambiguous arbitration

9

clause that they consented to when they both executed the [operating agreement].” Id. at 4.

10

The Lahrses do not dispute that their crossclaims against First 100 and their third-party

11

complaint against Bloom is subject to the binding arbitration clause in the operating agreement.

12

(See generally ECF No. 133). To the contrary, the Lahrses “have no objection or opposition to

13

submitting only those crossclaims to binding arbitration.” Id. at 3. However, the Lahrses do

14

contend that “any other relief impliedly or ostensibly sought by this pending motion but for which

15

no motion has bene properly made (i.e., liquidated damages), . . . are also subject to binding

16

arbitration.” Id. at 4.

17

Accordingly, Bloom and First 100’s motion to compel arbitration is granted, and the case

18

shall be stayed pending arbitration.5 The court declines to consider the issue of liquidated

19

damages, which is properly subject to arbitration agreement.

20

IV.

Conclusion

21

Accordingly,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the HOA’s motion to

23
24
25

dismiss (ECF No. 92) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lahrses’ cross claims against the HOA and
Kupperlin be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED without prejudice.

26
Although First 100 and Bloom argue that the court should dismiss the Lahrses’ claims
for lack of jurisdiction, the FAA requires a stay of litigation when courts grant a petition to compel
arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3. The stay lasts “until such arbitration has been had.” Id.
5

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 11 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lahrses’ motion for partial summary judgment (ECF
No. 127) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that First 100 and Bloom’s motion to compel arbitration
(ECF No. 130) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lahrses’ claims against First 100 and Bloom be, and
the same hereby are, STAYED pending the close of arbitration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report or stipulation of
dismissal within ten (10) days after the close of arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED September 9, 2019.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 12 -