N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PIER C E C OUNTY, a

politic a l subdivision of the State of W a s hington,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M A M OR TENSON C OM PANY, a M inne sota

c orporation, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-35257 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-05041-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 6, 2020 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : IKUTA a

nd R . NELSON, C irc u it Judge s, a nd OLIVER , ** Distric t

Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAR 17 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Solom on Olive r, Jr., Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.Pie rc e C ounty a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r c om pe lling a rbitra tion a nd dism issing the C ounty ’ s c o m pla int for de c la

ra tory re lie f. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 9 U.S.C
. § 16(a )(3). Se e Gre e n Tre e Fin. C orp.-Ala. v . Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 89 (2000). The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting M .A. M orte n son C om pa ny ’ s m otion to c o m pe l a rbitration. Thepa

rtie s a gre e d tha

t “ [a ] ll C la im s a

rising out of the

W ork sha l l be re solve d by

arbitrat ion” and de fine d the te rm “ C la im ” to inc lude any

c la im file d by M orte nson with the

C ounty to re solve a

dispute “ re ga

rding the te rm s of a C ha nge Orde r or a

re q ue st for e quita

ble a djustm e nt.” The a gre e m e nt did not
re quire tha

t a dispute m e e t a

ny c onditions pre c e de nt to be c onside re d a “ C la im ” that trigge rs the a gre e m e nt to a rbitrate . R a the r, § 8.01 of thea gre e m e nt use d the te rm “ C l a im ” to re fe r to a ll dispute s re ga rding c om

pe nsation, re ga

rdle ss whe the r the c la i m satisfie d the substa

n tive and proc e dura l re quire m e nts in § 8.01(C ). The re fore , M orte nson’ s pe nding c om pe nsation dispute s c onstitute “ C la im s ” tha

t the p artie s ha d a gre e d to a rbitrate . Nor did the c o urt e rr in dism issing the C ounty ’ s c om

pla int for de c la

ra tory
re lie f re ga

rding whe the r spe c i fie d C la i m s sa tisfie d the nine re quire m e nts in § 8.01(C ). The c om

pla int is be st re a d

a s ra ising de fe nse s to M orte nson’ s c la im s for c o m pe nsation a

nd the re fore is ba

rre d by the pa rtie s’ a gre e m e n t tha

t “ [n] o
2inde pe nde nt le ga l a c tion re lating to or a rising from the W ork sha ll be m a inta ine d .” Furthe r, the pa

rtie s ’ a gre e m e nt tha

t the arbitra

tion “ sha ll be in a c c orda

nc e with the C onstruc tion Industry

Arbitra tion R ule s of AAA” is “ c le ar and unm ista k a ble
e vide nc e ” tha

t the pa rtie s a gre e d tha

t a n a rbitrator would de c ide whe the r a dispute
m e e ts the re quire m e nts for be ing a n a rbitra ble “ C la im
. ” Se e Bre nnan v . Opus Bank , 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th C ir. 2015); se ealso Mose s H. C one Me m ’l Hosp.
v . Me rc ury

C onstr. C orp. , 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983) (“ [A] ny doubts c o n c e rning the
sc ope o f arbitra

ble issue s should bere solve d in fa vor of a rbitrat ion, whe the r the proble m at ha nd is the c o n struc tion of thec ontra c t la ngua ge itse lf or a

n a lle gation of wa ive r, de l a

y , or a like de fe nse to a

rbitra b ility .” ). Ac c ordingly , it is for the
arbitrator to de c i de whe t

he r M o rte nson’ s “ C la im s ” should be de e m e d “ wa ive d” for not sa tisfy ing the re q

uire m e nts of § 8.01(C ). AFFIRM E D
.

3