Opinion
No. 12-56328 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-07695-GW-E
06-12-2014
WIMBLEDON FINANCING MASTER FUND, LTD, a Cayman Islands company and STILLWATER MARKET NEUTRAL FUND III SPC, a Cayman Islands company, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. DAVID MOLNER, an individual; et al., Defendants - Appellants, And ARAMID ENTERTAINMENT FUND LIMITED, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2014
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
--------
In their Second Amended Complaint, Wimbledon Financing Master Fund Limited and Stillwater Market Neutral Fund III SPC (collectively "Plaintiffs") alleged claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) fraud. Defendants Aramid Entertainment Fund, Screen Capital International Corporation, Aramid Capital Partners, and David Molner (collectively "Defendants") filed a motion to compel arbitration of those claims. The district court denied Defendants' motion. Reviewing de novo, Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004), we affirm.
The parties agree the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208) controls the agreement at issue. Although an agreement in writing may obligate the parties to the agreement to arbitrate their claims, see Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 654 (9th Cir. 2009), Plaintiffs are not signatories to the agreement.
Defendants have not alleged a contract or agency theory to bind Plaintiffs to the terms of an arbitration agreement they did not sign. See id. at 655; Letizia v. Prudential Bache Secs., Inc., 802 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1986) ("nonsignatories of arbitration agreements" bound by such agreements to the extent "ordinary contract and agency principles" would bind them). Defendants offer no controlling law establishing their novel derivative theory as a viable means to bind nonsignatories to arbitration agreements.
AFFIRMED.