# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 19 49

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ci ty of Ben ke lm an , Nebr as ka , A Pol it ic al Su bd iv is io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Bas el in e Eng in eeri ng Co rp or at io n, A Co lo rad o C or po rat io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Lay ne Ch ris te ns en Co m

pa ny, a Delaware Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Nort h P la tt e

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Aug us t 1 , 20 17
Fil ed : Au gu st 11 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

A ru ral Neb ras ka co m

m u ni ty se ek s fed eral rev ie w of it s m ul ti -m il li on do ll ar
cl ai m s ag ai ns t a Co lo rad o co rp or at io n. A Un it ed Sta te s Di st ric t Co ur t in Neb ras kade te rm in ed th at it la ck ed juri sd ic ti on ov er th e cl ai m s an d is su ed a f i n a l jud gm en t 1

or de rin g th e pa rti es to pr oc eed to arb it rat io n in Co lo rad o. W it h juri sd ic ti on un de r 28
U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we re ve rs e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I.

The Ci ty of Ben ke lm an is a co m m un it y of le ss th an on e th ou sa nd res id en ts

lo cat ed in Dun dy Co un ty, Ne b r a s k a

. In 20 05

, th e st at e he al th an d hu m an se rv ic es
de pa r tm en t or de red th e Ci ty to ad dr es s th e ex ces si ve am ou nt s of ur an iu m , ars en ic

,

an d o th er co nt am in an ts in th e Ci ty’ s dri nk in g water su pp ly. The Cit y su bs eq ue nt ly

co nt ract ed wit h Bas el in e Eng in eeri ng Co rp or at io n, a Co lo rad o or ga ni zat io n, to as si st

wit h th e pe rm it ti ng , de si gn , an d co ns tru ct io n of a wate r tre at m en t pl an t fo r th e Ci ty.

The Ci ty ob ta in ed pa rti al fu nd in g fo r th e pr ojec t fro m th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t

of Agri cu lt ur e - Ru ral Deve lo pm en t (“ USDA-RD”).

The pr ojec t beg an in Ju ly 20 09 an d th e pl an t was ope rat in g by May 20 12

. In

Ju ne 20 12

, ho wev er, la bo rat or y te st s of tr e a t e d w a te r sa m pl es sh owe d th at th e

ur an iu m le ve ls st il l di d no t co m pl y w i t h fed eral dr in ki ng wate r st an da rd s. Aro un d

fiv e m on th s la te r, th e st at e de ni ed fin al ap pr ov al of th e pl an t fo r fai lu re to effe ct iv el y

tre at th e Ci ty’ s wat er s up pl y

.

The C i t y s u ed Bas el in e in fed eral co ur t in Neb ras ka

, al le gi ng br each of 2

co nt ract

, ne gl ig en ce an d pr of es s i o n al m al pr act ic e, frau d, an d ne gl ig en t

m is rep res en ta ti on

. Seek in g da m ag es in ex ces s of $5 .5 m il li on , th e co m pl ai nt av erre d

th at Bas el in e fai le d to pr op erl y de si gn th e tre at m en t pl an t, m is rep res en te d it se lf as a

See F ed . R. Civ . P. 54 (b ). 1

The Ci ty al so su ed Lay ne Ch ris te ns en Co m pa ny, whi ch th e Ci ty ha d hi red to 2
fu rn is h la bo r, eq ui pm en t, an d m at eri al s fo r th e pl an t. Lay ne is no t a p a r t y to th is

ap pe al

.

-2

-wate r en gi ne eri ng ex pe rt, an d ga ve fal se in fo rm at io n ab ou t ho w t o br in g th e Ci ty’ s

wate r su pp ly int o c om

pl ia nc e wit h s ta te an d fe de ral laws

.

Bas el in e m ov ed to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt

. Ci ti n g ge ne ral ly Fed eral Ru le of

Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b ), Bas el in e arg ue d th at th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on du e

to a di sp ut e res ol ut io n pr ov is io n in a co nt ract th at bo th pa rti es si gn ed on or ab ou t Ju ly

21

, 20 09 (th e “ Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract ”). Un d e r t he Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract

, if th e pa rti es

can no t res ol ve a di sp ut e th r o u g h a “a face -to -fac e m eet in g,” th e di sp ut e m us t be

“ su bm it te d to bi nd in g arb it rat io n

. . . co nd uc te d at a su it ab le lo cat io n wit hi n 15 m il es
of [Bas el in e’s] th en ex is ti n g pr in ci pa l of fic e. The arb it rat io n sh al l be co m pl et ed

pu rs ua nt to th e Uni fo rm

Arbi tra ti on Act, C.R .S. § 13 -2 2- 20 1, et se q. , an d go ve rn ed
by th e pr ov is io ns of th e Co lo rad o Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e, be fo re a si ng le arb it er.”

The Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract fu rth er pr ov id es th at

, if th e pa rti es waiv e arb it rat io n or if th e
arb it rat io n pr ov is io n is in va li da te d or do es no t ap pl y , “ ve nu e fo r an y co ur t pr oc eed in g
wil l b e th e Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r Je ffer so n C ou nt y , Sta te of C ol or ad o.” 3

The Ci ty op po se d Bas el in e’s m ot io n, arg ui ng th at th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract do es

no t co nt ro l be cau se it was su pe rs ed ed by a se co nd co nt ract th at th e pa rti es si gn ed on

Bas el in e’s m ot io n to di sm is s fu rth er a s s e r t e d th at

, on th e sa m e da y th e Ci ty 3

c o mm en ced fed eral li ti ga ti on , Bas el in e fil ed a de m an d fo r arb it rat io n in Co lo rad o

se ek in g to reco ve r an ou ts ta nd in g ba la nc e th at th e Ci ty al le ge dl y owe d un de r th e Ju ly
20 09 Co nt ract

. The pa rti es di sp ut e th e cu rren t s t a t u s of th e Co lo rad o arb it rat io n
pr oc eed in gs

. Acco rd in g to th e Ci ty, aft er th e Ci ty ob jecte d to arb it rat io n th e arb it er
st ay ed th e m at te r to al l o w t h e f e d eral di st ric t co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er a bi nd in g arb it rat io n agr eem en t exi st s. By co nt ras t, Bas el in e co nt en ds th at th e arb it er did no t

st ay th e arb it rat io n pr oc eed in gs bu t th at

, aft er th e Ci ty ob jecte d, th e arb it er de cl in ed

to acce pt juri sd ic ti on an d di rect ed res ol ut io n of th e juri sd ic ti on al di sp ut e to a co ur t of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on

. Und er ei th er vi ew, at th is ti m e th e pa rti es are no t act iv el y in vo lv ed in arb it rat io n p ro ceed in gs

.

-3

-or sl ig ht ly be fo re Aug us t 27

, 20 09 (th e “ Aug us t EJCDC Agr eem en t” ). The Aug us t 4

EJCDC Agr eem en t, co m

pr is ed of th irt een pa ge s an d te n ex hi bi ts

, is a st an da rd fo rm

co nt ract pr ep ared by th e En g i n eers Jo in t Co nt ract Doc um en ts Co m m it te e (th e

“ EJCDC ”). The Ci ty cl ai m s th at

, be cau se th e tre at m en t pl an t was fun de d in pa rt by
USDA-RD, th e pa rti es were req ui red to ex ecu te th e EJCDC ag reem en t an d h a v e it

ap pr ov ed by USDA-RD. In de ed

, in a le tt er da te d A u g us t 28

, 20 09

, Bas el in e

su bm it te d t he pa rti es ’ si gn ed Aug us t EJ CDC Ag reem en t t o t he USDA-RD, an d t he
Agr eem en t was ap pr ov ed on Octo be r 5, 20 09

. Bec au se pa rag rap h 6.0 1 K of th e

A u gu st EJCDC Agr eem en t st at es th at “ [a]ll [c]on tra ct [d ]ocu m en ts

. . . s h a l l b e

su bjec t to [a]gen cy co nc ur ren ce,” th e Ci ty arg ue s th at th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract (wh ic h

was no t se nt to USDA-RD fo r ap pr ov al ) si m pl y m em or ia li ze d t h e p art ie s’ in it ia l

ag reem en t bu t was la te r rep la ced as th e go ve rn in g do cu m en t by th e ag en cy -ap pr ov ed
Aug us t EJ CDC Ag reem en t.

The Aug us t EJCDC Agr eem en t ha s it s own arb it rat io n pr ov is io n, al th ou gh th e

pr ov is io n is no t m an da to ry an d is tri gg ered on ly if a di s p u t e s u rv iv es th e pa rti es ’

go od fai th ne g o t i a t i o n an d m ed ia ti on

. In su ch an ev en t th e Aug us t EJCDC
Agr eem en t st at es th at “ ei th er pa rty m ay se ek to ha ve th e [d ]isp ut e res ol ve d by a co ur t

of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on .” Alt ern at iv el y , if le ss th an $2 00 ,00 0 is in co nt ro ve rs y , th e
di sp ut e m ay be res ol ve d by a m et ho d m ut ua ll y ag reed up on by th e pa rti es , “ in cl ud in g
bu t n ot li m it ed to arb it rat io n.”

In ad di ti on to co nf

li ct in g arb it rat io n an d fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se s, th e Ju ly an d
Aug us t c o nt ract s co nt ai n th e fo ll owi ng te rm s rel ev an t to Bas el in e’s m ot io n to

di sm is s:

Tho ug h th e si gn at ur es on th e Aug us t EJCDC Agr eem en t are da te d Aug us t 17

, 4

20 09

, an d Aug us t 27

, 20 09

, pa ge on e of th e Agr eem en t st at es th at it is effe ct iv e as of
Ju ly 20, 2 00 9.

-4

-(1 ) In co rpo ra tio n by refe renc e. Tho ug h th e Aug us t EJCDC Agr eem en t was

si gn ed aro un d a m on th aft er th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract

, it is twi ce i n c o r p or at ed by

r e f e r e n ce as “ Exh ib it B” to th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract

. Fi rs t, pa ge 1 of th e Ju ly 2 0 0 9

Co nt ract co nt ai ns a bo x ti tl ed “ Jo b Des cri pt io n” fo ll owe d by an in st ru ct io n to “ [s ]ee

Ex h i b i t B he ret o - fo r acco m pa nyin g EJCDC ag reem en t.” Seco nd

, a pr ov is io n o n

pa ge 3 ti tl ed “ Ent ire Co nt ract ” st at es , “ Exh ib it s A an d B he ret o are in co rp or at ed in to

th is Agre em en t as ful ly set f or th he rei n.”

(2 ) Cho ic e-o f-l aw

. The Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract co nt ai ns a ch oi ce-o f-l aw pr ov is io n

st at in g th at th e pa rti es ’ ag reem en t “ sh al l be go ve rn ed by th e la ws of t h e S ta te of

Co lo rad o.” Und er th e Aug us t EJCDC Agr eem en t, ho wev er, “ th e la w of th e st at e in

whi ch th e Pro

ject i s l oc at ed ”—Ne br as ka —co nt ro ls

.

(3 ) Merg er cl au se s. Each co nt ract pu rp or ts to rep res en t th e en ti re ag reem en t

be twee n th e pa rti es an d to tru m p an y pr io r or in co ns is te nt ag reem en ts

. The Ju ly 20 09

Co nt ract st at es :

Thi s Agr eem en t an d th e do cu m en ts se t fo rth in Exh ib it s A an d B he ret o sh al l su pe rs ed e an y ot he r co nt ract be twee n [ t h e Ci ty] an d [Bas el in e],
rel at in g to th e su bjec t m at te r th ereo f. Thi s is a fu ll y in te gr at ed Co nt ract

. Any pr ev io us st at em en ts

, rep res en ta ti on s, a g r eem en ts

, ne go ti at io ns or di sc us si on s are nu ll an d vo id

, an d are fu ll y m erg ed he rei n. In cas e of a

co nf li ct or in co ns is te nc y be twee n th is Agr eem en t an d an y ot he r co nt ract do cu m en ts

, th is Agr eem en t sh al l co nt ro l. [Bas el in e] m ak es no pr om is es

or ag reem en ts writ te n or or al ex cep t fo r th e pr ov is io ns he rei n se t fo rth

.

The Aug us t EJ CDC Ag reem en t l ik ewis e st at es :

Thi s Agr eem en t (co ns is ti ng of pa ge s 1 to 13

, in cl us iv e, to ge th er wit h th e

ex hi bi ts id en ti fie d ab ov e) co ns ti tu te s th e en ti re ag reem en t be twee n [th e Ci ty] a n d [ Bas el in e] fo r th e Pro ject an d su pe rs ed es al l pr io r writ te n or

or al un de rs ta nd in gs

.

-5

-In co ns id eri ng Bas el in e’s m ot io n to di sm is s, th e di st ric t co ur t fir st de te rm in ed

th at , a lt ho ug h t he m ot io n c it ed on ly gen eral ly Rul e 1 2( b) , it sh ou ld be co ns tru ed as

a Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n to di sm is s fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on

. The co ur t lo ok ed be y on d

th e m ot io n’s cap ti on to it s co nt en t, wh i ch arg ue d th at th e co ur t “ la ck s juri sd ic ti on ”

an d t ha t “ th is [c]ou rt’s ju ris di ct io n is li m it ed to en fo rci ng th e va li d and en fo rcea bl e
fo ru m sel ect io n c la us e in th e [c]on tra ct .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Nex t, ap pl y in g Ru le 12 (b )(1 ), th e co ur t ch arac te riz ed th e m o ti on as a fact ua l

ch al le ng e to su bjec t m at te r ju r i s di ct io n (as op po se d to a faci al ch al le ng e) be cau se

Bas el in e acco m

pa ni ed th e m ot io n with ex hi bi ts th at of fere d fact ua l in fo rm at io n no t

ap pe ari ng in th e Ci ty’ s com pl ai nt

. See Bran so n Label , Inc . v. Ci ty of Bran so n, 79 3

F.3 d 91 0, 91 4- 15 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (d is cu ss i n g t he di ffer en ce in fact ua l an d faci al

ch al le n g e s t o s u b

je ct m at te r juri sd ic ti on ). Thi s le d th e co ur t to de ci de th at

, as th e

no nm ov in g pa rty in a Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) fact ua l ch al le ng e, th e Ci ty (1 ) ha s “ th e bu rd en of

pr oo f th at juri sd ic ti on do es in fac t e x i s t

, ” an d (2 ) is affo rd ed “ no pr es um pt iv e

tru th fu ln es s” wit h re sp ect to it s al le ga ti on s. See Osb or n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 9 18 F.2d

72 4, 7 30 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t th en co ns id ered whi ch co nt ract go ve rn s th e pa rti es ’ di sp ut e. App lying st at e-l aw pr in ci pl es of co nt ract in te rp ret at io n , th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at

“ [t]he co nt ract s in th is cas e m us t be co ns tru ed as on e be cau se th ey in vo lv e th e sa m e

pa rti es an d sa m e tra ns act io n, an d be cau se th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract ex pr es sl y st at es th at

it in co rp or at es t h e EJCDC Agr eem en t in to it as ‘E xh ib it B.’” The co ur t no te d,

ho wev er, th at co ns tru in g th e two d o c um en ts as on e co nt ract br in gs to li gh t th e
in co ns is te nc ie s be twee n th e va rio us pr ov is io ns

. Ci ti ng Co lo rad o an d Neb ras ka la w, 5

See Dav id Fi a l a , Lt d

. v

. Harri so n, 86 0 N.W .2d 39 1, 39 7 (Neb

. 20 15 ); JTS 5
Ch oi ce Ent erp ris es , In c. v. E.I. Dup on t De Nem ou rs & Co

., No. 11 -cv –0 31 43

, 20 13
W L 15 44 21 , at * 3- 4 (D. Co lo . Jan . 15 , 20 13 ).

-6

-th e co ur t co nc lu de d tha t (1 ) the in co ns is te nt pr ov is io ns ren de r th e co nt ract am bi gu ou s

an d (2 ) ex tri ns ic ev id en ce m ay th eref or e be co ns id ered in or de r to di sc ern th e pa rti es ’

in te nt

.

The on ly ex tri ns ic e vi de nc e was pr es en te d fo r th e fir st ti m e wit h Bas el in e’s

rep ly br ie f su pp or ti ng th e m ot io n to di sm is s. The affi da vi t of Bas el in e Pres id en t Jo hn

McLai n an d at ta ch m en t rev eal ed th at in Ju ne 20 11 —t wo y ears in to th e pr ojec t— th e

pa rti es ex ecu te d th ree or de rs ex pa nd in g th ei r in it ia l ag reem en t to in cl ud e ad di ti on al

en gi ne eri ng se rv ic es (th e “ 20 11 Ch an ge Ord ers ”). Each or de r ( 1 ) s p eci fic al ly

r efer en ces an d qu ot es th e “ Add it io na l W or k” cl au se se t fo rth in th e Ju ly 20 09

Co nt ra ct an d (2 ) st at es th at “ [a ]l l [ a ]d di ti on al [w]ork wil l be pe rfo rm ed un de r an d

co ns id ered an ex te ns io n of th e ab ov e m en ti on ed Agr eem en t.” The di st ric t co ur t he ld

th at th e 2 0 1 1 C ha ng e Ord ers are ex tri ns ic ev id en ce in di cat in g th at th e pa rti es
in te nd ed “ th at th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract r e mai n op erat iv e, co nt ro ll in g, an d no t

su pe rs ed ed by the att ach ed EJCDC Agre em en t.”

Turn in g to th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract

, th e co u r t l o o k e d to th e pr ov is io n st at in g:

“ In cas e of a co nf

li ct or in co ns is te nc y be twee n th is Agr eem en t an d an y ot he r co nt ract

do cu m en ts

, th is Agr eemen t sh al l co nt ro l .” (em ph as is ad d e d )

. Thu s th e co ur t

co nc lud ed tha t “ the Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract ‘con tro ls ’ th e co nf li ct in g pr ov is io ns reg ard in g

ap pl ic ab le l a w a n d arb it rat io n, m ak in g Co lo rad o la w ap pl ic ab le an d req ui rin g th e

pa rti es to su bm it to bi nd in g a r b i t r a t i o n in Co lo rad o, to be co nd uc te d in th e fas hi on
de sc rib ed in th e Ju ly 20 09 Co nt ract .” The co ur t th eref or e gr an te d Bas el in e’s Ru le

12 (b ) m ot io n an d di sm is se d th e Ci ty’ s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Bas eline w it ho ut pr ejud ic e. The

co ur t di rect ed th at th e Ci ty’ s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Bas el in e p r o c e e d to arb it rat io n in

Co lo rad o.

II.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ).” Great Ri ve rs Hab it at All ia nc e v. Fed

. Em erg en cy

-7

-Mg m

t. Age nc y , 61 5 F

. 3 d 98 5, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

A.

The Ci ty arg ue s th at th e m ot io n can no t be co ns tr u e d as a ch al le ng e to th e
di st ric t co ur t’s su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ). I n st ead

, th e Ci ty

co nt en ds

, th e m ot io n sh ou ld be an al y zed un de r ei th er Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) as a ch al le ng e to

ve nu e, Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) as an as se rti on th at th e Ci ty’ s co m pl ai nt fai le d “ to st at e a cl ai m

up on whi ch rel ie f can be gr an te d,” or Ru le 56 as a mo t i o n f o r su m m ary jud gm en t.

W e fir st co ns id er th e Ci ty’ s pr op os al to tre at th e m ot io n as a m ot io n to di sm is s
fo r im pr op er ve nu e u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(3 ). Acco rd in g t o t he Cit y , arb it rat io n c la us es

are su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar to fo ru m -s el ect io n cl au se s, an d th eref or e a m ot io n to di sm is s
ba se d on an arb it rat io n cl au se sh ou ld be tre at ed as a Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) ob jecti on to ve nu e.
The Ci ty ba se s it s an al og y o n S c h erk v. Alb ert o- Cu lv er Co

., whe re th e Su pr em e
Co ur t in de ed de sc rib ed arb it rat io n ag reem en ts as “ a sp eci al iz ed ki nd o f f o r um

se le ct io n c la us e.” 4 17 U.S. 50 6, 5 19 (19 74 ).

Bu t th e Ci ty o ve rlo ok s m or e rece nt Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t th at fo recl os es
it s Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) arg um en t. Si nc e Sch erk

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pr es sl y he ld th at

pa rti es m ay no t en fo r ce fo ru m -s el ect io n cl au se s th ro ug h Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) m ot io ns to

di sm is s. Atl

. Mar in e Co ns tr. Co

. v. U.S. Dis t. Co ur t fo r th e W

. Dis t. of Tex

., 13 4 S.

Ct

. 56 8, 57 7 (2 01 3)

. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) a l l o w [ s ] di sm is sa l on ly

whe n ve nu e is ‘w ro n g ’ o r ‘im pr op er.’ W he th er ve nu e is ‘w ro ng ’ or ‘im pr op er’

de pe nd s ex cl us iv el y on whe th er th e co ur t in whi ch th e cas e was br ou gh t sa ti sf ie s th e

req ui rem en ts of fed eral ve nu e la ws, an d th os e pr ov is io ns sa y no th in g ab ou t a fo ru m

se le ct io n cl au se .” Id .; se e al so In re Uni on El e c

. Co

., 78 7 F.3 d 90 3, 90 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ) (s ta ti ng th at Atl an ti c Mar in e “ cl earl y el im in at ed th e po ss ib il it y of us in g Rul e

12 (b )(3 ) as a m ean s t o enf or ce a fo ru m -s el ect io n clau se ”). Thu s, to th e ex te nt an

-8

-arb it rat io n pro vi si on is li ke a fo ru m -s el ect io n c la us e, th e m ot io n s eek in g t o c om pe l

arb it rat io n i s n ot pro pe rly con st ru ed un de r Ru le 12 (b )(3 ).

W e ne xt co ns id er th e Ci ty’ s as se rti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by an al y zi ng
th e m ot io n un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ). W e ha ve pr ev io us ly up he ld

, on in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

, th e d e n ia l of a m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n st y le d as a Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n to

di sm is s. U.S. for Use o f Lig ht ni ng & Po wer Ser vs ., Inc . v. Inte rfac e Co ns tr. Corp

., 55 3 F.3 d 11 50

, 11 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). And

, as Bas el in e po i nt s ou t, we ha ve al so

up he ld th e gr an t of a Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n to di sm is s ba se d on an arb it rat io n cl au se

co nt ai ne d in a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t un de r th e Rai lway Lab or Act, a juri sd ic ti on -s tri pp in g st at ut e. Tho m ps on v. Air Tran sp

. In t’l Ltd

. Liab

. Co

., 66 4 F.3 d

72 3, 72 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Bu t we ha ve no t a d d res se d whe th er an arb it rat io n

ag reem en t al on e—i nd ep en de nt of st at ut or y or ot he r b i nd in g juri sd ic ti on al

li m it at io ns —d iv es ts th e fed eral co ur ts of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. W e ho ld th at it

do es no t.

Our de ci si on is in fo rm ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s reas on in g in Atl an ti c Mar in e.

13 4 S. Ct

. at 57 7. The Co ur t co nc lu de d th at fed eral ve nu e la ws, no t fo ru m -s el ect io n
cl au se s, go ve rn th e pr op rie ty of ve nu e un de r Ru le 12 (b )(3 ). Id

. Th e s a me l o gi c

ap pl ie s whe re, as he re, a pa rty se ek s to en fo rce an arb it rat io n ag reem en t un de r Ru le

12 (b )(1 ). Ju st as a fo ru m -s el ect io n cl au se ha s no be ari n g on th e is su e of whe th er

ve nu e is “ wro ng ” or “i mp r o p e r , ” an arb it rat io n ag reem en t ha s no rel ev an ce to th e

qu es ti on of whe th er a gi ve n cas e sa ti sf ie s co ns ti tu ti on al o r s t a t u to ry de fin it io ns of
juri sd ic ti on

. See Aut o. Mec h. Loc al 70 1 v. Van gu ard Car Ren ta l, 50 2 F.3 d 74 0, 74 3 (7 th Cir . 2 00 7) (“ Enfo rcem en t of a fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se (in cl ud in g an arb it rat io n
cl au se ) is no t juri sd ic t i o n a l

. . . .”); Mi nn

. Su pp ly Co

. v. Mi ts ub is hi Cat erp il la r

F o r k li ft Am

., In c., 82 2 F. Su pp

. 2d 89 6, 90 4 n.1 0 (D. Mi nn

. 20 11 ) (“ To di sm i s s a
fed eral act io n fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be ca us e th e di sp ut e is su bjec t to

a bi nd in g arb it rat io n a gr eem en t m is ta ke nl y as su m es th at an arb it rab le di sp ut e, by

de fin it io n, fal ls ou ts id e th e real m of fed eral juri sd ic ti on

. Mo reo ve r, th e fact th at th e

pa rti es ha ve co nt ract ua ll y ag reed to res ol ve an y pa rti cu la r di sp ut e by arb it rat io n sa y s

-9

-no th in g ab ou t whe th er th at di sp ut e wou ld sa ti sf y fed eral qu es ti on , d i v e r si ty or an y

ot he r ba si s of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on .”). Bu t s ee Gil be rt v. Don ah oe , 75 1 F.3 d

30 3, 30 6 (5 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ [A] dis tri ct co ur t l ack s s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er a

cas e an d sh ou ld di sm is s it pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(1 ) whe n
th e p art ie s’ di sp ut e is su bjec t t o b in di ng arb it rat io n.” ).

W e th eref

or e ho ld th at

, co nt rary t o B as el in e’s co nt en ti on , th e Ju ly 20 09

Co nt ract ’s arb it rat io n cl au s e d o e s no t st rip th e fed eral co ur ts of juri sd ic ti on

. Acco rd in gl y , we ag ree w i t h t he Ci ty th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co ns tru in g th e

m ot io n a s a R

ul e 1 2( b) (1 ) ch al le ng e to su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

.

W e are th us le ft wit h two al te rn at iv e cl as si fic at io ns : Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) (fai lu re to

st at e a cl ai m ) an d R

ul e 5 6 (s um m ary jud gm en t).

Bas el in e of

fers no reas on why Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) do es no t ap pl y

. As to Ru le 56

, Bas el in e ci t e s a cas e fro m th e East ern Dis tri ct of Virg in ia an d arg ue s th at ap pl y in g

Ru le 56 wou ld be pr ejud ic ia l be cau se th e Ci ty cou ld cla im th at Bas el in e wai ve d i ts rig ht to co m

pe l arb it rat io n by m ov in g fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. See Karn et te v.

W ol po ff & Abr am so n, L.L.P., 44 4 F. Su pp

. 2d 64 0, 64 8 (E.D. Va. 20 06 ). The is su e
in Karn et te —a no n- bi nd in g di st ric t co ur t op in i on —was whe th er th e de fen da nt

waiv ed it s rig ht to arb it rat io n b y m ov in g fo r su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e pu rp os e of

us in g t h e pl ai nt iff

s’ res po ns e to “ reas se ss it s ch an ces of win ni ng th e cas e” be fo re
de ci di ng whe th er to m ov e to co m pe l arb it rat io n. Id

. As no su ch li ti ga ti on ta ct ic s are

at pl ay in th is cas e, we are u nm ov ed by K arn et te

.

Upo n care fu l rev ie w of th e rel ev an t a u t h o rit y , we ag ree wit h th e Ci ty th at

Bas el in e’s m ot io n is pr op erl y an al y zed un de r ei th er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) or Ru le 56

. To be

s u r e , t h e m ot io n do es no t si t sq ua rel y on al l fo ur s wit h ei th er ru le

. W e a r e

no ne th el es s sat is fie d th at , un li ke th e cas es in te rp ret in g Rul es 12 (b )(1 ) or (b )(3 ), th e
le ga l au th or it y do es no t fo rb id pa rti es fro m us in g Ru le s 12 (b )(6 ) or 56 to en fo rce an

-1 0-arb it rat io n ag reem en t. To th e co nt rary, ou r si st e r c i r c u it s reg ul arl y em pl oy Ru le s 6

12 (b )(6 ) an d 56 whe n de ci di ng whe th er to co m pe l arb it rat io n. See Gui do tt i v. Leg al

He lp ers Deb t Res ol ut io n, L.L.C., 71 6 F.3 d 76 4, 77 1 (3 d Ci r. 20 13 ); Cn ty. of

McHe nr y v. In s. Co

. of th e W es t, 43 8 F.3 d 8 1 3

, 8 17

, 82 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 06 ); se e al so
Tin de r v. Pi nk ert on Sec., 3 0 5 F

. 3 d 72 8, 73 5 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ci ti ng cas es fro m th e
Seco nd

, Thi rd

, an d Fi fth Ci rcu it s an d st at in g th at “ co ur ts th at ha ve ad dr es se d th e

qu es ti on ha ve an a l o g i zed th e

. . . ev id en ti ary st an da rd a pa rty se ek in g to av oi d

co m pe ll ed arb it rat io n m

us t m eet

. . . to th at r e q u ire d of a pa rty op po si ng su m m ary jud gm en t” ).

We d e c l in e to pr es s th e m at te r by de ci di ng be twee n Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) an d 5 6

, be cau se su m

m ary jud gm en t st an da rd s ap pl y ei th er way

. In li ti ga ti ng Bas e l i n e ’s

m ot io n bo th pa rti es su bm it te d m at te rs ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered whe n gra nt in g th e m ot io n. Thu s, even if th e m ot io n is co ns tru ed un de r 7

Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), it m

us t ul ti m at el y “ be tre at ed as on e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t un de r Ru le

56 .” See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (d ) (“ If, on a m ot io n u n d e r Ru le 12 (b )(6 )

. . . , m at te rs

ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs are pr es en te d to an d no t ex cl ud ed by th e co ur t, th e m ot io n m us t

be tre at ed as on e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t un de r Ru le 56 .”); se e al so Eva ns v.

McDo nn el l Airc raft Co rp ., 39 5 F.2 d 35 9, 36 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 68 ) (“ Si nc e b o th pa rti es
fil ed affi da vi ts an d exh ib it s in su pp or t of the ir res pe ct iv e po si ti on s, wh ic h were no t

To th e ex te nt Bas el in e se ek s to en fo rc e the fo ru m -s el ec tio n cl au se ind ep en de nt 6
of th e arb it rat io n ag reem en t, Bas el in e sh ou ld ha ve in vo ke d th e fo ru m no n co nv en ie ns do ct rin e. See Atl an ti c Mar in e, 13 4 S. Ct

. at 58 0 (“ [T]he ap pr op ria te way to en fo rce

a fo ru m -s el ect io n clau se po in ti ng to a st at e or fo rei gn fo ru m is th ro ug h th e do ct rin e of fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns .”).

Bas el in e fil ed two affi da vi ts an d two ex hi bi ts al on g wit h th e m ot io n to 7
di sm is s; th e Ci ty o p po se d th e m ot io n by fi li ng an op po si ti on br ie f acco m pa ni ed by

on e e x h i b i t ; a nd Bas el in e rep li ed to th e Ci ty’ s op po si ti on br ie f wit h it s own br ie f

su pp or ti ng th e m ot io n acco m pa ni ed by on e at ta ch m en t, on e affi da vit

, an d one ex hi bi t.

-1 1-ex cl ud ed by th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, th e m ot io n to d i s mi s s sh ou ld pr op erl y ha ve be en

tre at ed as o ne for su m

m ary jud gm en t.”)

. 8

B.

Had th e di st ric t co ur t an al y zed Bas el in e’s m ot io n as on e f o r s u mm ary jud gm en t, w e w o u l d rev ie w de no vo th e su m m ary jud gm en t an al y si s by de ci di ng
whe th er th ere are ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact an d whe th er Bas el in e “ is en ti tl ed to

a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a); se e al so Ja c k s o n v.
Ri eb ol d, 81 5 F.3 d 11 14

, 11 19 (8 th Ci r

. 20 16 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ap pe al is de no vo ). Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t ha s no t ad dr es se d, no r ha ve
th e pa rti es ha d an op po rtu ni ty t o b r i e f

, whe th er Bas el in e’s m ot io n sh ou ld su ccee d

un de r Ru le 56

. W ere we to ad jud ic at e th e m eri ts of th e m ot io n, th eref or e, we wou ld

vi ol at e ou r own ge ne ral ru le ag ai ns t co ns id eri ng i ss ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. See, e.g ., W ei tz Co . v. Llo y d’s o f Lon do n, 5 74 F.3d 88 5, 8 90 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Alt ho ug h ou r ru le is no t ab so lu te

, we th in k i t b es t in th is cas e th at su m m ary jud gm en t pr oc eed in gs —wh ic h are in he ren tl y fact in te ns iv e an d m ay le ad th e pa rti es

to tri al —b e he ld fir st in th e di st ric t co u r t

. See CMH Hom es , In c. v. Goo dn er, 72 9

F.3 d 83 2, 83 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (in di cat in g th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t is be tt er eq ui pp ed to

ad dr es s [fac t-i nt en si ve qu es ti on s] in th e fir st in st an ce.”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 66 5

F.3 d 95 1, 95 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( s u g g e s t i n g th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t [is ] in a far be tt er

po si ti on to ad dr es s” qu es ti on s of fact th an th e ap pe ll at e co ur t). Acco rd in gl y , we

W e wou ld reac h th e sa m e res ul t were we to co ns tru e th e Ru le 12 (b ) m ot io n 8

as a m ot io n to co m

pe l arb it rat io n. See Neb

. Mac h. Co

. v. Carg ot ec So lu ti on s, LLC,
76 2 F.3 d 73 7, 74 1- 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s ta ti ng th at m ot io ns to co m pe l arb it rat io n th at

are acco m pa ni ed by at ta ch ed ex hi bi ts an d affi da vi ts sh ou ld be tre at ed un de r su m m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ard s)

.

-1 2-rev ers e th e or de r di sm is s i n g t h e Ci ty’ s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Bas el in e an d rem an d fo r

co ns id erat io n o f Bas el in e’s m ot io n u nd er s um m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ard s. 9

III.

Fo r th es e reas on s, th e o r de r of th e di st ric t co ur t is rev ers ed an d th e cas e is

rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Si nc e th e pa rti es ’ or al arg um en ts on May 11

, 20 17

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci de d 9

Kin dr ed Nur si ng Cen te rs Lim it ed Part ne rs hi p v. Cl ark

, 13 7 S. Ct

. 1 4 2 1 ( 20 17 ).
Bas ed on la ng ua ge in Part IIB of th at in te rv en in g op in io n reg ard in g th e sc op e of th e Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act— a st at ut e th at ne it he r pa rty inv ok ed be fo re t hi s co ur t— we

o r d e r e d su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g to al lo w th e pa rti es to ad dr es s whe th er Part IIB of
Kin dr ed Nur si ng im

pa ct s th is cas e. The pa rti es su bm it te d th ei r su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g

on Ju ly 31, 2 01 7.
Afte r care fu ll y rev ie win g th e su pp le m en t a l b r i efs

, we de cl in e to ru le at th is
ti m e on th e rel ev an ce (if an y ) of Kin dr ed Nur si ng to th e un de rlyin g di sp ut e. The
in st an t ap pe al tu rn s on m at te rs of ci vi l pr oc ed ur e, no t su bs ta nt iv e la w. Our ho ld in g is li m it ed to a de ci si o n t h a t ( 1) Bas el in e’s am bi gu ou s Ru le 12 (b ) m ot io n sh ou ld be

an al y zed un de r su m

m ary jud gm en t st an da rd s, an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld be th e fir st to ap pl y th os e st an da rd s. Thu s, an an al y si s by th is co ur t of Kin dr ed Nur si ng

wou ld on ly sp li nt er le ga l i s s u e s p res en te d in th is cas e whi ch are be st ad jud ic at ed

co ll ect iv el y

in su m m ary jud gm en t p ro ceed in gs in th e d is tri ct co ur t.

-1 3-