N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C R AIG AR NOLD; e t a l ., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. IR ONGATE SER

VIC ES, LLC , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and PHILIP M ORR IS USA, INC .; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts. No. 18-35222 D.C . No. 1:17-c v-00032-TJC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na T im othy J. C ava n, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : IKUTA a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d C HOE-GR O VES, ** Judge
.



# F IL ED F EB 19 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 Je nnife r C h oe -Grove s, Judge for the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de s igna tion.Irongat e Se rvic e s, LLC (“ Irongat e ” ) a ppe a ls the de nia l of its m otion to
c om pe l C ra ig Arnold a

nd othe r nonsigna

torie s to the M a ste r Se rvic e s Agre e m e nt (c olle c tive ly

re fe rre d to he re in a s “ Individua l Pla i ntiffs” ) to a rbitrate the ir c la im s a ga inst Ironga

t e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 9 U.S.C . § 16 a nd re vie w “ the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision to deny the m otion to c om p e l arbitration de novo.” Dav is v
. N ordstrom, Inc
. , 755 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014). The que s tion whe the r the Individua l Pla intiffs a re bound to a

rbitrate the ir
c la im s a ga inst Ironga

te unde r princ iple s of e q

uita ble e stoppe l is gove rne d by M onta na la w. Se e Arthur Anderse n LLP v . C arlisle , 556 U.S. 624, 631–32 (2009). Our c a se s a

pply ing a fe de ra l te s t to this issue

hav e be e n supe rse de d by Arthur Ande rse n , a

nd a re no longe r a

pplic a ble
. Se e id. ; K

rame r v . Toy ota Motor C orp., 705 F.3d 1122, 1130 n.5 (9th C ir. 2013). Irongat e ha s not e s ta

blishe d tha

t the Individua l Pla intiffs a re bound to
arbitrate the ir c la im s a ga inst Ironga t e a s a m atte r of M onta

na la w. 1 Irongate fa ile d to a l le ge tha

t a ny of the six e le m e nts of M onta na ’ s e quita

ble e stoppe l te s t a

re m e t. Se e Turne r v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N .A. , 291 P.3d 1082, 1089–90 (M ont. 2012). While the M o nta

na Supre m e C ourt ha s a

pplie d C a lifornia

la w to hold tha

t

1 B e c a use we de c ide on this ba sis, we do not re a c h the que stion whe the r the arbitration a gre e m e n t

c ove rs the disputeat issue
. Se e K i lgore v . K

e y Bank , N at’l Ass’n , 718 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba n c ). 2nonsigna

torie s c an c om

pe l signa torie s to a rbitrate unde r c e rta in c irc um sta nc e s, se e Pe e le r v . Roc k

y Mountain Log Home

s C anada, Inc
. , 431 P.3d 911, 926–28 (M ont. 2018), no M o nta

na c a se ha s he l d tha

t signa torie s c an c om

pe l nonsigna

torie s to
arbitrate . Ironga

te argue s tha

t C a lifornia

a ppe lla te c ourts ha

ve he ld tha

t signa torie s to a n arbitrat ion a g re e m e nt c an c om pe l nonsigna

t orie s to a rbitrate whe n

the re are c e rta in ty pe s of pre e x isting re lationships bet we e n the pa

rtie s, se e C

ty . of C ontra C osta v . K aise r Found. He alth Plan, Inc
. , 47 C a l. App. 4th 237, 242–43 (1996). B ut e ve n if the M onta

n a Supre m e C ourt a dopte d this te st, Ironga te ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t the re is a

pre e xisting re lationship be twe e n the Individua l Pla i ntiffs a

nd Ironga te tha t would m e e t C a l ifornia ’ s re quire m e nts. C ontra ry to Ironga te ’ s argum e nt, ne ithe r the M onta na Supre m e C ourt’ s unpublishe d opinion in Ste w a rt v . Hauptman , 169 P.3d 405 (M ont. 2007), nor
se c t ion 28-2-503(2) of the M o nta na C ode a ddre sse s whe the r a pa rty who ha s not
e nte re d into a

c ontra c t to a

rbitrate c a n be bound by

its te rm s. B e c a

use Hauptman is unpublishe d, unde r M o n ta na rule s it m ay

not be c i te d a s pre c e de nt. 169 P.3d a t ¶ 1. In a ny e ve nt, Hauptman he ld tha t whe n the pa

rtie s to a c o ntra c t a gre e to sha

re in the c osts a

nd be ne fits of subse que ntly a c quire d le a se s , a pa rty tha t a c c e pts the be ne fits of suc h subse que ntly a c quire d a ssignm e nts of le a se s is de e m e d to be bound by suc h a ssignm e n ts. Id. at ¶ 27. Ironga te doe s not a

rgue tha t the
3Individua l Pla intiffs ha ve e n t e re d into a

ny an a l ogous a

rrange m e n t. Nor doe s se c t ion 28-2-503(2) he lp Ironga te , a s tha t se c tion a ddre sse s c ontra c t form ation, a

nd provide s tha

t a pa rty tha t volunta rily a c c e p ts the be ne fit of a

tra n s a c tion m ay

be de e m e d to ha

v e c onse nte d to thec ontra c t a nd be bound by its te rm s . Ironga te ha s not shown tha

t the Individua l Pla intiffs ha ve e nte re d into theM SA e ithe r e xpre ssly or by im plic at ion. AFFIRM E D.

4