Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_24-cv-00323/USCOURTS-alnd-4_24-cv-00323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

MIDDLE DIVISION

ATTENTIVE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-323-CLM 

LINKED.EXCHANGE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant Linked.Exchange, LLC (“Linked.Exchange”) has moved 

to stay proceedings and compel arbitration against Plaintiff Attentive, 

LLC (“Attentive”). The court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART Linked.Exchange’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. 

BACKGROUND

Attentive provides group wellness programs to customers through 

employer-sponsored medical plans. Linked.Exchange markets and 

provides technology support for businesses like Attentive. 

In 2019, the companies formed a business relationship in which 

Linked.Exchange would market Attentive’s services, manage Attentive’s 

website, and develop software to automate Attentive’s services. Over the 

next year, the companies entered into four agreements. The first two 

related to Linked.Exchange marketing Attentive’s services: the “NonCompetition Agreement” (doc. 12-1) and the “Referral Agreement” (doc. 

12-2). The third, “the Licensing Agreement” (doc. 12-3), related to 

Linked.Exchange automating and licensing Attentive’s Proposal 

Calculation Tool. As its name suggests, the final agreement, “the Website 

Agreement,” related to Linked.Exchange’s development and management 

of Attentive’s website. 

FILED

 2025 Jan-09 PM 01:37

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 1 of 7
2

The parties’ relationship went south in 2024 when, Attentive 

claims, Linked.Exchange took down Attentive’s website and took 

Attentive’s customers and brokers. So Attentive sued Linked.Exchange in 

state court, alleging six counts: breach of all four contracts, tortious 

interference with business relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, 

conversion, money paid by mistake, and unjust enrichment.

Linked.Exchange removed the case to this court under diversity 

jurisdiction (doc. 1) and now asks the court to order the parties to arbitrate 

all claims and stay this case in the meantime. (Doc. 4). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court should treat motions to compel arbitration like motions 

for summary judgment. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 754 F.3d 

1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate only when 

the moving party shows there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A fact is material if it is one that might 

affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 248 (1986). And all evidence must be viewed and inferences drawn in 

the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Centurion Air Cargo, Inc. v. 

United Parcel Serv. Co., 420 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005).

DISCUSSION

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that any arbitration 

provision in a written “contract evidencing a transaction involving 

commerce...shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. This 

provision “reflect[s] both a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, and 

the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.” AT&T 

Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). Following these 

policies, “courts must place arbitration agreements on equal footing with 

other contracts and enforce them according to their terms.” Id. 

When determining whether to grant a motion to compel arbitration, 

this court must “consider: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to 

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 2 of 7
3 

arbitrate; and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of 

that agreement.” Carusone v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., No. 5:19-CV-01183-

LCB, 2020 WL 3545468, at *3 (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2020) (quoting Scurtu 

v. Int’l Student Exch., 523 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1318 (S.D. Ala. 2007)). “To 

resolve these questions, courts apply state-law principles relating to 

ordinary contract formation and interpretation, construed through the 

lens of the federal policy favoring arbitration.” Scurtu, 523 F. Supp. 2d at 

1318’ see also Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1368 

(11th Cir. 2005) (“[When] determining whether a binding agreement arose 

between the parties, courts apply the contract law of the particular state

where the dispute occurred.”). 

Under the FAA, “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitral issues 

should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. 

Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983). “[T]he party resisting 

bears the burden of proving that the claims at issues are unsuitable for 

arbitration.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91 

(2000). “[A]n order to arbitrate [a] particular grievance should not be 

denied” if the party resisting arbitration cannot show “with positive 

assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an 

interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” AT&T Techs., Inc. v. 

Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986). 

A. The License Agreement compels arbitration for part of 

Count 1 and all of Count 5. 

The parties focus heavily on the Licensing Agreement because it is 

the only agreement that contains an arbitration provision: 

12. ARBITRATION. The parties agree to submit any dispute 

under this Agreement to binding arbitration under the Revised 

Uniform Arbitration Act as adopted in North Carolina (GS1-569) 

in the following location: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

Judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be 

entered in any court with jurisdiction to do so. Licensor and 

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 3 of 7
4 

Licensee agree to use the American Arbitration Association only if 

arbitration is triggered per the terms of this Agreement. 

(Doc. 4-2, p. 15) (highlight added). As the highlighted language shows, the 

parties agreed to undergo arbitration for any dispute stemming from the 

Licensing Agreement. The parties agree that two claims fit this bill: 

breach of the Licensing Agreement (Count 1) and money paid by mistake 

(Count 5). And Attentive has not provided an argument for why these two 

claims should not go to arbitration. So the court grants Linked.Exchange’s 

motion to compel arbitration as to these two claims. 

B. Attentive’s remaining claims are not within the scope of the 

Licensing Agreement. 

That leaves us with seven claims that span five counts: breach of 

contract as to the Non-Competition Agreement (Count 1); breach of 

contract as to the Referral Agreement (Count 1); breach of contract as to 

the Website Agreement (Count 1); tortious interference with business or 

contractual relations (Count 2), misappropriation of trade secrets (Count 

3), conversion (Count 4), and unjust enrichment (Count 6). 

The court must now determine (a) whether these claims are also 

subject to arbitration, and if they are not, (b) whether the court should 

stay this case while some claims are arbitrated. 

Whether these claims are subject to arbitration boils down to 

whether these claims also stem from the Licensing Agreement, which 

contains the already-mentioned arbitration clause, or from the earlier 

non-competition and referral agreements, which do not. 

1. Licensing Agreement: The court agrees with Attentive that its 

remaining claims do not stem from alleged violations of the Licensing 

Agreement, which again is the limited reach of the arbitration provision: 

12. ARBITRATION. The parties agree to submit any dispute 

under this Agreement to binding arbitration under the Revised 

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 4 of 7
5 

Uniform Arbitration Act as adopted in North Carolina (GS1-

569) in following location: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

(Doc. 4-2, p. 15) (highlight added). While “the phrase ‘any controversy or 

claim arising out of or relating to’...covers a broad range of disputes,” 

Harris v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 2d1303, 1306 (M.D. Ala. 

2002) (quoting Ex parte Crisona, 743 So.2d 452, 456 (Ala. 1999)), “having 

[a] contract which contains a broad arbitration agreement does not 

necessarily mean that arbitration can be compelled when the subject of 

the dispute arises from a separate contract which does not have an 

arbitration clause.” Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1201 (11th Cir. 

2004). 

The phrase “any dispute under this Agreement” is not so broad that 

it reaches disputes stemming from other agreements. To the contrary, by 

its plain language, it narrows the scope of arbitrable claims to only those 

stemming from the Licensing Agreement. 

So the court must look to the agreements that Attentive claims 

Linked.Exchange violated in the remaining claims. The non-competition 

agreement contains these two provisions regarding legal disputes: 

This agreement shall be governed by and construed under the 

State of Alabama. 

... 

The parties agree that any claim of any type brought by one 

against the other must be maintained only in a court sitting in 

Marshall County, Alabama, or if a federal court, the Northen 

District of Alabama. 

(Doc. 12-1, p. 6). The Referral Agreement (doc. 12-2) contains the following 

provision regarding legal disputes: 

This agreement shall be governed by, interpreted and construed in 

accordance with the laws of the State of Alabama... 

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 5 of 7
6

(Doc. 12-2, p. 5). And the parties did not submit the Website Agreement, 

so there is no evidence that it contains an arbitration clause either.

Because none of Attentive’s remaining claims are disputes that rise 

under the Licensing Agreement, none of them must be sent to arbitration. 

In fact, the non-competition agreement required Attentive to file claims 

stemming from its violation in state court (as Attentive did). So the court 

denies Linked.Exchange’s request to force these claims to arbitration: 

breach of contract as to the Non-Competition Agreement (Count 1); breach 

of contract as to the Referral Agreement (Count 1); breach of contract as 

to the Website Agreement (Count 1); tortious interference with business 

or contractual relations (Count 2), misappropriation of trade secrets 

(Count 3), conversion (Count 4), and unjust enrichment (Count 6).

C. The court will not stay this case pending arbitration.

Linked.Exchange asks the court to stay all claims upon granting its 

motion to compel arbitration. “[A] district court shall stay a pending suit 

‘upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is 

referable to arbitration’ under a valid arbitration agreement.” Klay, 389 

F.3d at 1203-04. But “[w]hen confronted with litigants advancing both 

arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims...courts have discretion to stay 

nonarbitrable claims.” Id. at 1204. “[C]ourts generally refuse to stay 

proceedings of nonarbitrable claims when it is feasible to proceed to with 

the litigation.” Id. 

Linked.Exchange has not responded to Attentive’s argument 

against staying these claims, nor has it shown that the arbitrable claims 

predominate. To the contrary, Attentive’s non-arbitrable claims far 

outnumber the claims being submitted to arbitration. And the court sees 

no reason to make Attentive wait to litigate those claims. So the court 

denies Linked.Exchange’s motion to stay. 

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 6 of 7
7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the court GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Linked.Exchange’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. 

The court GRANTS Linked.Exchange’s motion to compel arbitration as 

to Count 1 (breach of contract, licensing agreement) and Count 5 (money 

paid by mistake). The court DENIES Linked.Exchange’s motion to stay 

litigation and compel arbitration for Attentive’s remaining claims.

The court ORDERS the Linked.Exchange to submit a responsive 

pleading to Attentive’s Complaint. Following Linked.Exchange’s 

response, the parties shall submit a joint Rule 26(f) Report, under the

court’s Initial Order.

DONE and ORDERED on January 9, 2025.

 _________________________________

 COREY L. MAZE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:24-cv-00323-CLM Document 20 Filed 01/09/25 Page 7 of 7