Case ID: f-appx_578/html/0691-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 12-56328.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2014.
    
    Filed June 12, 2014.
    Alex M. Weingarten, Ruth Moore, Wein-garten Brown LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Crystal Yvonne Jonelis, John R. Loftus, Esquire, Benjamin T. Potter, Esquire, Daniel Rozansky, Esquire, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Steven M. Goldsobel, Becky Hsiao, Steven M. Goldsobel Law Offices, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant.
    Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 nonsignato-ries to arbitration agreements.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.