Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03983/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03983-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1

 To the extent Anthony E. McNamer, counsel for Plaintiff, is unable to travel to San

Francisco for the new case management date, he may submit such a request and may appear

by telephone.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN BROWNING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VENETIAN CASINO RESORT LLC, ET AL., 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-03983 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL ARBITRATION AND

STAY MATTER AND

CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Now before the Court is the motion filed by third party defendant Kirk Nix Associates

Inc. d/b/a KNA Interior Designs (“KNA”) to dismiss or stay and to compel arbitration. The

Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and it is hereby

deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing date of June 13, 2008 is

HEREBY VACATED. The case management conference is CONTINUED to June 20, 2008 at

1:30 p.m.1

 

BACKGROUND

Third party defendant KNA is a corporation based in Los Angeles, California that offers

interior design consulting services. Venetian Casino Resort, LLC is a Nevada limited liability

company that operates the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino. Las Vegas Sands, LLC is a Nevada

limited liability company and managing member of Venetian Casino Resort, LLC and is wholly

owned by Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Jonathan Browning, Inc., Plaintiff in the underlying

action, is a designer and seller of products such as the wall-mounted lighting sconces at issue

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 7
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

here. The underlying claims arise out of alleged copying or inducement to copy and display

Jonathan Browning, Inc.’s light fixture designs in the remodeling of guest rooms in the

Venetian Casino Resort. 

 On February 1, 2006, KNA and the Venetian Casino Resort, LLC executed an

agreement (“Agreement”) relating to the remodeling of guest rooms in the casino. (See

Declaration of Johnathan E. Mansfield (“Mansfield Decl.”), Ex. A.) In connection with their

consulting services, KNA agreed to indemnify the Venetian and its affiliates from and against

all damages, loss, expenses, liabilities, or costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

to the extent such damages are a proximate result of any act or omission of KNA under the

Agreement or caused by KNA’s negligent or intentionally wrongful performance of service

under the Agreement. (See id., Ex. A at 11.) Also, as part of the Agreement, the parties agreed

that “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or breach of this

Agreement shall be settled by arbitration.” (See id., Ex. A at 15.) 

In addition to the Venetian Tower remodel project, KNA also apparently provided

services to the Venetian Defendants for a remodel of the Palazzo Tower, a new resort and

casino adjacent to the Venetian. (See Declaration of Franklin Levy, ¶ 4.) There is no allegation

in the original complaint regarding the Palazzo Tower remodeling project and, at this stage in

the proceedings, no admissible evidence of a separate contract governing this project.

On August 2, 2007, Plaintiff Jonathan Browning, Inc. filed a complaint against the

Venetian Casino, Las Vegas Sands, LLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“the Venetian

Defendants”) seeking damages for copyright infringement and unfair competition based on the

production and public display of light fixtures in the casino. On January 20, 2008, the Venetian

Defendants filed a third party complaint seeking contractual and declaratory relief against KNA.

On April 23, 2008, third party defendant, KNA, moves this Court to enforce the

arbitration provision in the Agreement.

The Court will address additional specific facts as required in the analysis.

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 7
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

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Compel Arbitration.

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements “shall be valid,

irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the

revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Once the Court has determined that an arbitration

agreement involves a transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling under the FAA,

the Court’s only role is to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether

the scope of the parties’ dispute falls within that agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v.

Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). “Under § 4 of the FAA, a

district court must issue an order compelling arbitration is the following two-pronged test is

satisfied: (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; and (2) that agreement encompasses the

dispute at issue.” United Computer Systems v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 766 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The FAA represents the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” and

“any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of

arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1,

24-25 (1983). Under the FAA, “once [the Court] is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration

has been made and has not been honored,” and the dispute falls within the scope of that

agreement, the Court must order arbitration. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,

388 U.S. 395, 400 (1967). That the Court must order arbitration is true “even where the result

would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums.” 

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217 (1985).

Notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring arbitration, by entering into an arbitration

agreement, two parties are entering into a contract. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of

Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989) (noting that arbitration

“is a matter of consent, not coercion”). Thus, as with any contract, an arbitration agreement is

“subject to all defenses to enforcement that apply to contracts generally.” Ingle v. Circuit City

Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, 1170 (9th Cir. 2003.) Although the Court can initially determine

whether a valid agreement exists, disputes over the meaning of specific terms are matters for the

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 7
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

arbitrator to decide. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002); Prima

Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-404 (holding that “a federal court may consider only issues relating to

the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate”).

B. The Venetian Defendants’ Contentions.

In this matter, the parties agree that there is a valid contract to arbitrate “[a]ny

controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach of this

Agreement.” (See Mansfield Decl., Ex. A at 15.) The Venetian Defendants’ defense against

the enforcement is fourfold: (1) there is no agreement to arbitrate between KNA and Las Vegas

Sands LLC or Las Vegas Sands Corp.; (2) the equitable indemnity claims fall outside of the

scope of a legal agreement; (3) there is no arbitration agreement relating to the Palazzo Tower

new construction project; and (4) KNA’s material breach of the agreement with Venetian

precludes KNA from enforcing the arbitration agreement against the Venetian Defendants.

1. Parties to the Agreement to Arbitrate.

Defendants contend that Las Vegas Sands LLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp. cannot be

required to arbitrate their claims against KNA because there is no arbitration agreement

between those parties. The Agreement was between KNA Interior Design and Venetian Casino

Resort LLC. (See id. at 1, 3.) In general, a court may only compel arbitration between parties

who have entered the written agreement to arbitrate. Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine

Workers, 414 U.S. 368, 376 (1974) (“The law compels a party to submit his grievance to

arbitration only if he has contracted to do so.”) However, nonsignatories may be required to

arbitrate claims “under ordinary contract and agency principles.” Letizia v. Prudential Bache

Securities, Inc., 802 F.2d 1185, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The rule of equitable estoppel “precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract

while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes.” Comer v. Micor,

Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Washington Mutual Fin. Group, LLC v.

Bailey, 364 F.3d 260, 267 (5th Cir. 2004)). Here, because the nonsignatory Venetian

Defendants, Las Vegas Sands LLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Nonsignatory Venetian

Defendants”) have initiated litigation to enforce their contractual (and extra-contractual) rights,

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 4 of 7
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

they are bound by the limitations of that same contract. “[N]onsignatories have been held to

arbitration clauses where the nonsignatory knowingly exploits the agreement containing the

arbitration clause despite having never signed the agreement.” Comer, 436 F.3d at 1101

(citations omitted). Here, by moving to enforce their contractual rights, the Nonsignatory

Venetian Defendants cannot avoid the explicit agreement to arbitrate. Knowing exploitation of

the Agreement and assertion of their rights and benefits granted by virtue of a contractual

relationship compel enforcement of all provisions of the Agreement, including the agreement to

arbitrate, against all Venetian defendants. See id. at 1102; see also Pullen v. Victorywoodwork,

Inc., 2007 1847633, *3 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) (holding that “by asserting rights and benefits

under the Subcontract, plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding the arbitration provision.”)

2. Equitable Indemnity Claims.

The Venetian Defendants contend that the scope of the arbitration provision is limited to

“[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or breach of this

Agreement.” (Mansfield Decl., Ex. at 15.) The Venetian Defendants therefore argue that, “[b]y

legal definition, Defendants’ equitable indemnity claims cannot arise out of or relate to the

Agreement between KNA and the Venetian.” (Opp. Br. at 6.) However, Defendants’ equitable

indemnity claim presupposes that there is some legal duty between KNA and the Venetian

Defendants that is distinct from the duties imposed by the contract. It is clear from the terms of

the Agreement imposing arbitration over all claims arising out of or relating to the agreement,

and the factual allegations in the amended third party complaint, that the alleged actions by

KNA were performed under the duty imposed by the contract at issue here. See Comedy Club,

Inc. v. Improv West Associates, 502 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the

arbitration agreement, even where it granted exclusive jurisdiction over equitable remedies to

the courts, may be logically interpreted to grant arbitration coverage of “all disputes” arising

from the agreement, and finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by arbitrating

equitable claims.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the third party claims styled as equitable

indemnity claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 5 of 7
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

 The governing complaint in this matter does not seek damages in connection with

the Palazzo Tower remodeling project and, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court may

not go beyond the substance of the pleadings and the Agreement attached to the Mansfield

Declaration. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that

documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party

questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling

on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and such consideration does not convert the motion to

dismiss into a motion for summary judgment); United States v. Ritchie, 343 F.3d 903, 908

(9th Cir. 2003) (same).

6

3. Palazzo Tower New Construction Project.

Similarly, the Court finds that, to the extent KNA is responsible for conduct in the

construction of the Palazzo Tower construction project, and to the extent Plaintiff Jonathan

Browning, Inc. seeks recovery from the Venetian Defendants for such conduct, the dispute

arises only by virtue of a contractual relationship between KNA and the Venetian Defendants. 

Again, without a duty to perform derived from contract, there is no equitable claim for relief in

indemnity. To the extent such a claim lies at all,2 it is within the province of the arbitrable

forum to resolve it.

4. KNA’s Alleged Material Breach Precludes Recovery.

The Venetian Defendants argue that because KNA initially breached the contract, it

cannot enforce any of its provisions, including the requirement to arbitrate. Defendants cite

Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc. for the proposition that a company’s breach prevented it from enforcing

the arbitration agreement. (See Opp. Br. at 6, citing 430 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2005).) 

However, in that case, the company refused to participate in arbitration proceedings initiated by

one of its employees pursuant to their employment agreement and the court therefore denied the

company’s motion to compel arbitration in the employee’s action seeking to enforce her rights

under that same agreement. Dillard’s, 430 F.3d at 1010. Here, however, there is no allegation

that KNA has violated the arbitration provision it seeks to enforce. Rather, just as the Venetian

Defendants have alleged a breach of the contract, so too has KNA. KNA merely seeks to

enforce the provision that any and all such disputes between the parties be resolved in the

manner agreed upon. There is no authority for the position that simply by alleging that KNA

materially breached some provision of the agreement, the Court is compelled to find that it

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

cannot seek to enforce the terms of the agreement to arbitrate. Whether KNA breached another

provision of the contract is for the arbitrator to decide. 

C. Third Party Matter Should be Stayed.

Under the prevailing law, the arbitration agreement is enforceable and Plaintiff is

compelled to arbitrate his claims. The Federal Arbitration Act provides for a stay of the

proceedings in federal district court when an issue in the proceeding is referable to arbitration,

and for an order compelling arbitration when one party has failed or refused to comply with an

arbitration agreement. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 289 (2002) (citing 9

U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4). The Court is satisfied that the third party claims are referable to arbitration

and therefore GRANTS the motion to stay the third party portion of the action pending

arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, the Court does not issue a stay as to the original claims

by Jonathan Browning, Inc. against the Venetian Defendants.

Further, the case management conference originally scheduled to follow the hearing on

June 13, 2008 at 9:00 is HEREBY CONTINUED to Friday, June 20, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. The

original parties shall prepare to discuss the conduct of proceedings in light of this Court’s order

and shall submit a supplemental joint case management statement by no later than June 13,

2008 informing the Court of any change in their position regarding the proposed schedule and a

proposed date by which to complete mediation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS KNA’s motion to stay the third party

action and to compel arbitration. The parties shall appear for a case management conference on

June 20, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. to address the scheduling of further matters in the original action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03983-JSW Document 81 Filed 06/11/08 Page 7 of 7