N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
2151 M IC HELSON, L.P., a C a lifornia lim i te d pa rtne rship, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ORPOR ATION OF THE PR

ESIDING B ISHOP OF THE C HUR C H OF JESUS C HR IST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS, a Uta h C o rpora t ion, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-56106 D.C . No. 8:17-c v-00781-DOC -DFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 8, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M URPHY, ** Distric t Judge
.



# F IL ED
F EB 22 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 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 Ste phe n J. M urphy , III, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.2151 M i c he lson, L.P. (“ M ic he lson” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its m otion to re m and a n d gra nting theC orporation of thePre siding B ishop of the C hurc h of Je sus C hrist of La tte r-Da y Sa ints’ s (“ C PB ” ) m otion to dism iss
and c om pe l arbitra

tion in a n a c tion brought by

M i c he lson c ha lle nging the provisions of a

le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm in pa rt a n d re ve rse in pa

rt the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting C PB ’ s m otion to dism iss a nd c om pe l a rbitra tion. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de t e rm i ne d

tha t C PB ’ s litiga

tion of a re nt
re se t disputewith M ic he l son in 2002 wa s not a wa ive r of C PB ’ s right to a rbitrate the c urre nt re nt re s e t dispute . “ [A] pa rty se e king to prove

wa ive r of a

right to
arbitration m

ust de m onstra

te : (1) knowle dge of a

n e x isting right to c om

pe l
arbitration; (2) a c ts inc onsiste nt with tha t e xisting right; a

nd (3) pre j udic e to the pa rty opposing a

rbitration re sulting from

suc h inc onsiste nt a c ts.” Ric hards v . Ernst & Young, LLP , 744 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th C ir. 2013). C PB ’ s a c tions in the

pre se nt dispute

are not inc onsiste nt with the right to
arbitrate . In its c om

pla int, M i c he lson a c knowle dge d tha t C PB inte nde d to
arbitrate . Furthe rm o re , “ litiga tion m a c hine ry ” ha s not be e n “ ‘ s ubsta n t ia lly invoke d’ ” in this c a s e . Se e C ox v . Oc e an Vie w

Hote l C orp. , 533 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th C ir. 2008). C PB ha s file d only a m otion to re m ove and a

m otion to dism

iss
2and c om

pe l arbitra

tion. No disc ove ry

ha s be e n c onduc te d. M ore ove r, M ic he lson ha s not c ite d a

n y c ontrolling a

uthority for the proposition tha

t C PB ’ s a c tions in the prior sta te c ourt proc e e ding m ay

be c onside re d in a

wa ive r ana ly sis. In a ddition, M ic he lson fa ile d to a ddre ss in its ope ning brie f the distric t
c ourt’ s finding tha

t it fa ile d to m e e t its burde n of de m onstra ting pre judic e . Ac c ordingly , any argum e n t a ga inst the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t M ic he lson ha s not suffe re d pre

j udic e is wa ive d. Se e K

umar v . Gonzale

s , 444 F.3d 1043, 1056 (9th C ir. 2006). 2. The distric t c ourt e rre d by c onc l uding tha

t the sta t e c o urt pre c lusion issue is not subje c t to a

rbitration. The pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t the pre c lusive e ffe c t of prior litiga

tion is a rbitra b le
. Se e C

ollins v . D.R. Horton, Inc
. , 505 F.3d 874, 880 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ Arbitra

tors a re not fre e to ignore the pre c lusive e ffe c t of prior judgm e nts unde r the doc t rine s of re s judic a ta

and c olla te ra l e stoppe l, a lthough the y ge ne ra lly are e ntitle d to de te rm ine in the first insta nc e whe the r to give the prior judic ia l de t e rm ination pre c lusive e ffe c t.” ). M ic h e l son m ay the re fore pre se n t
argum e nts to thearbitration pa n e l a bout wha t pre c lusive e ffe c t the e arlie r state
c ourt proc e e dings ha

v e on the c urre n t dispute
. 3. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism isse d the a c tion on the ba s is tha t a ll the c la i m s a

re a rbitra b le . A distric t c ourt m ay

dism iss a n a c tion, ra

the r tha n sta y it,
3whe n a ll of the issue s a re arbitra ble
. Se e , e .g. , Sparling v . Hoffman C o nstr. C o. , 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th C ir. 1988). He re , a s e xpla ine d a bove , a ll the c la im s a

re
arbitra ble . Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err by dism issing the a c tion without pre j udic e . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts of a

p p e a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART AND RE V E RSE D IN PART .

4