Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05663/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05663-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN &

STEINER LLP,

Plaintiff,

v

FRANÇOIS MARLAND,

Defendant. /

No C 07-5663 VRW

Related to 

06-2071 VRW

ORDER

On November 7, 2007, plaintiff Thelen Reid Brown Raysman

& Steiner LLP (“Thelen”) filed a complaint and brought an

application for temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction. On November 16, 2007, the court entered a temporary

restraining order, and on December 11, 2007, the court entered a

preliminary injunction against defendant Francois Marland

(“Marland”), prohibiting him or his agents from proceeding with an

arbitration pending before the International Center for Dispute

Resolution (“ICDR”) (Arb No 50 180 T 00082 06) until further order

of court. Doc #27. The court directed the parties to show cause

why final judgment in accordance with the order should not be

Case 3:07-cv-05663-VRW Document 35 Filed 12/27/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

entered. Doc #27. 

Having considered the papers and the evidence and

arguments presented by counsel, and for the reasons given below,

the court finds that a final judgment PERMANENTLY ENJOINING Marland

and his agents from proceeding with the arbitration pending before

the International Center for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) (Arb No 50

180 T 00082 06) should be entered.

I

This case stems from prior litigation between the

parties, Civ No 06-2071 VRW (Thelen v Marland I). The parties are

familiar with the facts and legal issues underlying the prior case,

and the court need not fully describe them here. A full history of

the prior case can be found in this court’s August 1, 2007 summary

judgment order. Doc #320 in No 06-2071. Suffice it to say that

Marland initiated a New York arbitration against Thelen in February

2006, seeking to enforce rights and recover damages under a

February 1999 attorney-client agreement between the parties. 

Thelen promptly filed a complaint in this court seeking to enjoin

the New York arbitration on the grounds that a December 2002

agreement replaced any and all prior agreements between the parties

and did not contain an arbitration clause. In Thelen v Marland I,

Thelen sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the December 2002

agreement is valid and enforceable and (2) an injunction

prohibiting Marland from asserting any claims against Thelen which

are released by the December 2002 agreement (including the claims

asserted in the New York proceeding). Several other claims,

counterclaims and counter-counterclaims were made. The New York

Case 3:07-cv-05663-VRW Document 35 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

arbitration was stayed pending Thelen v Marland I. Doc #12, Ex 8.

The parties filed several dispositive motions, including

cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion for a permanent

injunction of the New York arbitration. In the August 1, 2007

order, this court granted summary judgment on Thelen’s claim for

declaratory relief and found that the December 2002 agreement

replaced any and all other agreements between the parties and that

the December 2002 agreement was valid and enforceable as a matter

of law. Doc #320 at 54:2-5.

The court denied as moot Thelen’s motion for a permanent

injunction of the New York arbitration, finding that the parties

had already litigated their claims to final resolution in this

court, thereby obviating the need for injunctive relief. Doc #320

at 55-56. Evidently, Marland did not get the message.

This new case arises because Marland has sought to reactivate the New York arbitration, arguing that the arbitration

should proceed because this court declined to enjoin it. On

November 5, 2007, the International Center for Dispute Resolution

(ICDR) re-activated the arbitration and gave Thelen until November

8 to state how it wished to proceed in selecting an arbitrator. On

November 7, 2007 Thelen filed Thelen v Marland II and sought a TRO

barring Marland from proceeding with the arbitration, arguing that

the only valid and enforceable agreement between the parties – the

December 2002 agreement – does not provide for arbitration.

In his opposition to the TRO, Marland specified the

relief sought in his renewed arbitration demand as:

(1) payment of $612,500 allegedly due under the December 2002

agreement and being held by Thelen in escrow, Doc #11 at 4, and

Case 3:07-cv-05663-VRW Document 35 Filed 12/27/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(2) “damages based on Thelen’s post-2002 disloyalty, including

opposing its former client in the same matter in which Thelen had

represented that client.” Doc #11 at 4.

II

As stated above, Marland’s arbitration demand rests on an

arbitration provision in the February 1999 agreement between the

parties. This court has already ruled in Thelen v Marland I that

the February 1999 agreement was replaced and superseded by the

December 2002 agreement. The December 2002 agreement does not

provide for arbitration. To the contrary, the December 2002

agreement requires the parties to resolve disputes in a California

court under California law. Doc #175 in No 06-2071, Ex T at § 9. 

“[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be

required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not

agreed so to submit.” A T & T Technologies, Inc v Communications

Workers of America, 475 US 643, 648-49 (1986). Where there is no

arbitration agreement, a party, in this case Thelen, cannot be

forced to arbitrate a dispute.

Marland’s arguments in his response to order to show

cause lack merit. First, Marland argues that entry of final

judgment is not proper because the court has not adjudicated all of

Thelen’s claims. Doc #29 at 2. While it is true that, in addition

to the claim for injunctive relief, Thelen’s complaint listed five

claims for declaratory relief, Doc #1 at 5-8, all of these claims

are mooted by the court’s entry of judgment in favor of Thelen on

its claim for injunctive relief. Marland’s concerns for Thelen’s

other claims are easily resolved by the court’s dismissal of those

Case 3:07-cv-05663-VRW Document 35 Filed 12/27/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

claims without prejudice. 

Next, Marland argues that he intends to assert

counterclaims in this action, and that by entering final judgment

and closing this case, the court would put Marland at risk of

waiving those claims. Doc #29 at 2-3. The counterclaims that

Marland intends to bring in this action are the same claims that he

brought in the New York arbitration proceedings. Marland’s proper

remedy, if any, is to appeal the court’s judgment or to bring a new

action in California, as provided by the 2002 agreement, not to

bring a counterclaim in this action. Thelen responded to Marland’s

counterclaim argument by asserting that Marland is time-barred from

filing a counterclaim in this action, Doc #30 at 2-3, which

prompted Marland to file a motion for administrative relief seeking

to strike Thelen’s assertions. Doc #31. Because the court finds

Marland’s counterclaim argument unpersuasive for other reasons, it

need not consider Thelen’s timing argument.

Finally, Marland argues that the court’s holding that the

December 2002 agreement replaced and superseded the February 1999

agreement and that the arbitration provision in the February 1999

agreement is therefore no longer enforceable is contrary to Supreme

Court precedent stated in Nolde Brothers, Inc v Local No 358,

Bakery and Confection Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 430 US 243 (1977). 

Doc #29 at 3-4. Although the issue of the arbitration provision’s

enforceability was fully litigated and disposed of in Thelen v

Marland I and the court need not revisit the issue here, the court

notes that Marland’s reliance on Nolde is misplaced. Marland too

broadly reads Nolde as holding that grievances based on events

after the termination of a contract that provides for arbitration

Case 3:07-cv-05663-VRW Document 35 Filed 12/27/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

are always subject to arbitration if the obligations at issue arose

under the terminated contract. But in Nolde, the contract

containing the arbitration clause was terminated at the election of

one of the parties. 430 US at 247. The Nolde contract was not, as

here, replaced and superseded by another contract that did not

provide for arbitration. Nolde involved an entirely different

factual situation and provides no support for Marland’s position.

III

The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of

Thelen on its sixth claim for injunctive relief and to dismiss

without prejudice Thelen’s first, second, third, fourth and fifth

claims for relief as moot. The clerk is also directed to terminate

as moot Marland’s motion for administrative relief and to close the

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05663-VRW Document 35 Filed 12/27/07 Page 6 of 6