United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
M. Warner District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge
the court is a motion by defendants Belsen Getty, LLC and
Terry M. Deru (collectively the “BG Defendants”)
to compel arbitration and stay litigation as to the BG
Defendants. Plaintiff Randy Fellows failed to respond
to the motion. For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.
relevance here, Plaintiff signed an Investment Management
Agreement (the “Agreement”) on behalf of Randy
Fellows Construction and as trustee of Randy Fellows
Construction Employment Retirement Plan. The Agreement
includes a broadly worded arbitration provision:
lf at any time during the term of the Agreement any question,
disagreement, difference or controversy shall rise among the
parties hereto regarding the meaning or interpretation of
this Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations of the
parties hereunder, whether factual. technical, legal,
equitable, or otherwise. such question, disagreement,
difference, or controversy shall be submitted to and
determined by arbitration in accordance with this
In July 2016, Plaintiffs filed the current action against the
BG Defendants and others.
claims against other defendants appear to arise from distinct
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §
1 et seq., establishes a strong federal policy in
favor of compelling arbitration. See Southland Corp. v.
Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 11 (1984); Sandvik AB v. Advent
Int'l Corp., 220 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2000). The
A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract
evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such
contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole
or any part thereof, [ . . . ] shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
9 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added).
“establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any
doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be
resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand
is the construction of the contract language itself or an
allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to
arbitrability.” Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v.
Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). “If
the allegations underlying the claims touch matters covered
by the parties' arbitration agreement, then those claims
must be arbitrated, whatever the legal labels attached to
them.” Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC v.
Medco Health Sols., Inc., 567 F.3d 1191, 1198 (10th Cir
2009). “[T]he party resisting arbitration bears the
burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for
arbitration.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v.
Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 81 (2000).
an arbitration provision is broad, “there arises a
presumption of arbitrability and arbitration of even a
collateral matter will be ordered if the claim alleged
implicates issues of contract construction or the
parties' rights and obligations under it.”
Cummings v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 404
F.3d 1258, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing ...