FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12654

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 1 8 - C V- 1 - MP - AK A N N E S . B E C K E R , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd as T rust ee of A nn e S . B ec ker C h a r ita b le R e m a in d e rU n itru s t, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O H N A . D A V I S , a .k .a . J e f f D a v is , F A L C O N F I N A N C I A L M A N A G E M E N T , I N C ., F A L C O N F I N A N C I A L P L A N N I N G , I N C ., M U L T I - F I N A N C I A L S E C U R I T I E S C O R P O R A T I O N , s uc c e s s orby m e r ge rt o I F G N e tw or k S e c u r itie s I n c ., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , W I L L I A M D . K I N G , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 11, 2007)2

B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s app ea l concerns a m ot i on t o com pel a pl ai nt i ff , A nn e S . B ec ker ( “ B e c ke r ” ) , t o s ubm i tthe c l a i m s i n he rc om pl a i ntt o a rbi tr a t i on pur s ua ntt o the F eder al A rbi tra t i on A ct , 9 U . S . C . §§ 1-16 . B ec ker, on her ow n b ehal f a nd as trus t e e on be ha l f

of he rc ha r i t a bl e r e m a i nde rtrus t , f i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns tva r i ous f i na nc i a l a dvi s or s a l l e gi ng tha tthe y pr ovi de d he ra nd the trus tw i th uns ound fi nanci al advi ce . W e c on cl ud e thatsom e of B ec ker’ s i nd i vi du al cl ai m s a re subj ec t t o arbi tra t i on and o thers ar e not . W e f urther c on cl ud e thatthe fi nanci al advi sors w ho di d n otcont ra ctw i th B ec ker t o sub m i tthei r di sput es t o arbi tra t i on ca n com pel arb i trat i o n o n l y t o th e ex t en tth atth ey al l eg ed l y co l l ab o rat ed w i th th o se w h o d i d so c o n tr a c t. B e c k e r , in d iv id u a lly a n d a s th e tru s te e f o rth e A n n e S . B e c k e rC h a r ita b le R e m a i nde rU ni trus t( “ the T rus t ” ) ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ the pl a i nt i f f s ” ) , f i l e d s ui ti n the Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s tr i c tC o u r tf o rth e No r th e r n Di s tr i c to f F l o r i d a a g a i n s tJ o h n A. D avi s, Jr . ; W i l l i am D . K i ng ; F al con F i nanci al M anagem ent , Inc. ; F al con F i nanci al Pl a n n i n g , I n c . ; M u l t i - Fi n a n c i a l Se c u r i t i e s Co rp o r a t i o n , s u c c e s s o rb y me r g e rt o I FG N etw ork S ec uri t i es , Inc. ; IF G A dv i sory S ervi ce s I nc. , f/k/ a A ss oci at ed F i nanci al P l anners , Inc. ; M i chae l T . H ar t l ey ; D al e K . E hrhart ; M i chae l G . T i l l m an; M i chae l3

T i l l m an, P . A . ; and T i l l m an H ar t l ey L L C . E ss ent i al l y, the com pl ai ntal l eges that these defe nd ant s provi ded B ec ker a nd the T rustw i th u nsou nd fi nanci al advi ce that lin e d th e p o c k e ts o f

th e th e d e f

e n d a n ts a t th e e x p e n s e o f p la in tif f s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts J o h n A . D a v is ( “D a v is ” ) , F a lc o n F in a n c ia l M a n a g e m e n t, I n c ., ( “F a lc o n F M ” ) , F a lc o n F in a n c ia l P la n n in g , I n c . ( “F a lc o n F P ” ) , M u ltiF i n a n c i a l S e c u r i t i e s C o rp o r a t i o n , s u c c e s s o rt o I F G N e two r k S e c u r i t i e s , I n c . ( “ I F GS E C ”) and IF G A dv i sory S ervi ce s, Inc. (“ IF G -A S ”) (c ol l ec t i vel y “ the defendant s” ) f i l e d a m ot i on t o c om pe l a rbi tr a t i on ba s e d on thr e e c ontr a c tua l a gr e e m e nt s tha tthe T ru s t e n te r e d in to w ith D a v is a n d I F G - S E C . E a c h o f th e th r e e a g r e e m e n ts c o n ta in a n a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on i n pa r ta nd d e n i e d th e mo t i o n i n p a r t . Th e c o u r tg r a n t e d th e mo t i o n a s i tr e l a t e d t o th e c l a i ms br oughtby B e c ke ra s trus t e e on be ha l f of the T rus t . T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on a s i tr e l a t e d t o the c l a i m s br oughtby B e c ke ri n he ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty , be c a us e s he w as no ta s i gn at ory t o t he agree m ent s. T he di stri ctcourtal so deni ed the m ot i on as t o F a l c on F M a nd F a l c on F P , be c a us e the y , t oo, w e r e nots i gna t or i e s t o the a g r e e m e n ts . T h e d e f

e n d a n ts ap p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r . W e a f f ir m in p a r t, r e ve r s e i n pa r t , a nd r e m a nd f orthe r e a s ons s e tf

or th i n thi s opi ni on. I . B AC KG RO UN D In 19 94 B ec ker i nh er i t ed approx i m at el y $9 m i l l i on and m ov ed t o F l ori da aTh ede fend ants Kingand Ti llm an a

reno t pa rt of thi s a pp e a l. 1 The documents that cre ated the Trust arenot part of the record. The c omplaint alleg es 2 that the Trust wa s cre ated on De cember 2, 1996, and oneof the agreements that the Trust entered into with IFG- SEC also indi cate s that the Trust was c reated on Dec ember 2, 1996. However, the Trust opene d an ac count with IFG- SEC on November 11, 1996. Inth ec o m

p l ai nt , th e“ C o n s p i ri n gD e f e n d ant s ”ar eth ed e f

e n d ant s D av i s , Ki n g , H art l e y, 3 and Tillman. 4 y e a rl a t e r . S h o r t l y a f

t e rh e ra r r i v a l i n F l o r i d a , B e c k e rm e tDe f e n d a n tWi l l i a m D. K i ng (“ K i ng ”) , w ho i nt rodu ce d h ert o D avi s a nd defe nd antM i chae l G . T i l l m an (“ T i l l m an”) . D uri ng al l re l evantt i m es , D avi s w as pres i dentand p ri nci pal ow ner

1 of F a l c on F M a nd F a l c on F P . D a vi s w a s a l s o a r e gi s t e r e d r e pr e s e nt a t i ve a nd re gi st er ed pri nci pal of IF G -S E C and a regi st er ed i nv es tm entadvi sor of I F G -A S . In l a t e 1996, on the a dvi c e of D a vi s , B e c ke rc r e a t e d the T rus ta nd na m e d he r s e l f a nd D a vi s a s trus t e e s . B e c ke rc l a i m s tha ts he ul t i m a t e l y pl a c e d appr oxi m a t e l y $3 2 m illio n , o n e th ir d o f

h e ra s s e ts , in th e T ru s t. A . T he C om pl a i nt O n J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , B e c k e ra n d th e T ru s t f ile d s u it a g a in s t th e d e f

e n d a n ts . T he c om pl a i nta l l e ge s a w i de va r i e ty of a l l e ga t i ons . I n ge ne r a l , the c om pl a i nt a l l e ge s tha ta l l the de f

e nda nt s w e r e w or ki ng t oge the rt o i nduc e B e c ke ra nd the T rus tt o a dopta f

i na nc i a l s tr a t e gy tha tw a s uns ui t a bl e f orhe rpe r s ona l i nve s tm e nt o b j ect i v es. T h e co m p l ai n tal so g en eral l y al l eg es th atth e “ C o n sp i ri n g D efen d an t s” 3 f a i l e d t o di s c l os e tha tthe y w e r e e nga ge d i n a s c he m e t o de f r a ud B e c ke ra nd the5

T ru s t: ( a ) by w r ongf

ul l y c r e a t i ng a n i nappr opr i a t e i nve s tm e nte nvi r onm e nta nd structure t o con trol the use a nd i nv es tm entof P l ai nt i ff’ s a ss et s f or an i nor di na t e l y l ong pe r i od of t i m e ; ( b) by w r ongf

ul l y c r e a t i ng a n i nve s tm e nt ve hi c l e ors truc tur e f

orP l a i nt i f

f tha tw oul d m a ke i tve r y di f f i c ul t , i f not i m pos s i bl e , f

orhe rt o e xtr i c a t e he r s e l f orhe ra s s e t s f

r om the C ons pi r i ng D e f e nda nt s ’ c ontr ol ; ( c ) by w r ongf ul l y c ha r gi ng P l a i nt i f

f a nd s ha r i ng a m ong the m s e l ve s e xc e s s i ve , i l l e ga l , a nd undi s c l os e d f e e s a nd c om m i s s i ons ; ( d) by w r ongf ul l y c r e a t i ng f

orthe m s e l ve s oppor tuni t i e s t o pr ovi de a nd c ha r ge P l a i nt i f f f ore xt e ns i ve , unne c e s s a r y , a nd i m pr ope rf e e ge ne r a t i ng “ profes si on al ” s ervi ce s; and (e) by prepar i ng or ca usi ng t o b e pre pare d c om pl e x doc um e nt s l a c ki ng pr ovi s i ons c us t om a r i l y f ound i n, orc ont a i ni ng p r o v is io n s n o t u s u a lly f o u n d in , s im ila rty p e s o f d o c u m e n ts p r o p e r ly p r e p a r e d b y o th e r s , a n d b y in d u c in g P la in tif f to e x e c u te th e m in o r d e rto e x te n d im p r o p e r ly th e iro w n c o n tr o l o v e rP la in tif f’s a s s e ts , a n d to f

a c ilita te th eir c o n ti n u in g S ch em e to D ef ra u d ; all w ith o u t reg ar d fo r P lain ti ff’s in te r e s ts , a n d f

o rth e f u n d a m e n ta l p u rp o s e o f

m a x im iz in g th e iro w n p r o f its a n d w e a lth a t th e e x p e n s e o f th e irc lie n t. T h e c o m p la in t m o r e s p e c if ic a lly a lle g e s a c tio n s b y th e d e f e n d a n ts a s to B ec ker a nd ac t i on s by the defendant s a s t o t he T rust . A s t o B ec ker a s a n i ndi vi dua l , the c om pl a i nta l l e ge s , a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tD a vi s , T i l l m a n, a nd K i ng gave her i m prop erfi nanci al advi ce concerni ng a r ea l es t at e tra nsac t i on w here B e c ke rha d pur c ha s e d, a l ong w i th a pa r tne r , S us a n B e r ge r , appr oxi m a t e l y 175 a c r e s o f la n d in M ic a n o p y , F lo r id a to s ta r t a b u s in e s s to tr a in a n d b o a r d h o r s e s . B e c ke ra l s o a l l e ge s tha tD a vi s ope ne d a m one y m a r ke ta c c ountw i thouthe rc ons e nt i n the na m e of

“ A N N E S . B E C K E R & J O H N A . D A V I S J R J T W R O S ( j oi nt t en an t s w i th ri g h to f su rv i v o rsh i p ). ” F u rth er, b ased o n D av i s’ s ad v i ce, B eck er al soCounts Th ir te e n a nd Ei ghte e n do n ot s e e k re lie f ag ains t mo vingthede fend ants . 4 6 c r e a te d th e A n n e S . B e c k e rI r r e v o c a b le T ru s ts . T h e s e tw o tru s ts w e r e c r e a te d to p r o v id e lif

e in s u r a n c e b e n e f

its to c e r ta in b e n e f

ic ia r ie s . B e c k e ra lle g e s th a t D a v is r e c e i ve d, w i thouthe rknow l e dge , a n i ns ur a nc e a ge ntc om m i s s i on i n c onne c t i on w i th t he i nsurance pol i cy i ss ued t o h erand t hatthe trust s them se l ves w er e u n s u ita b le f

o rB e c k e r ’s n e e d s . T he c om pl a i nta l l e ge s , a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tpur s ua ntt o the a dvi c e of D avi s a nd K i ng , the T rusti nv es t ed i n t he C N L Incom e F un d X V II I, L t d. (“ C N L ”) a n d th e in v e s tm e n t in th is s e c u r ity w a s u n s u ita b le f o rth e T ru s t. A ls o p u r s u a n t to Da v i s a n d Ki n g ’ s a d v i c e , th e Tru s to p e n e d i n v e s tme n ta c c o u n t s wi th DK E a n d SE I Investm ent s. T he com pl ai ntal l eges thatD avi s a nd hi s c om pani es re ce i ved im p r o p e rf

e e s b a s e d o n th e s e in v e s tm e n ts . B a s e d on the s e a nd othe rf a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons , B e c ke ra nd the T rus tf i l e d a tw e n ty - c o u n t c o m p la in t. B e c k e r , in h e rin d iv id u a l c ap a c ity , b r o u g h t f if te e n c o u n ts . T he T rus tbr oughtf

ourc ount s , a nd B e c ke ra nd the T rus tc ol l e c t i ve l y br oughtone c o u n t. 4 B . T h e A rb itr a tio n A g r e e m e n ts D ur i ng the c our s e of

B e c ke ra nd the T rus t ’ s r e l a t i ons hi p w i th the de f e nda nt s , the T rus te xe c ut e d thr e e a gr e e m e nt s w i th I F G - S E C . O n N ove m be r11,IF GN S re fers to IF G N e tw or k Se c uriti e s, Inc ., wh ic h is re ferre d toa s IF G- SEC in t his 5 opinion. 7 1996, the T rus te xe c ut e d the G oa l s D i r e c tC l i e ntS e r vi c e s A gr e e m e nt( “ a gr e e m e nt on e” ). A gree m enton e, w hi ch w as si gn ed by B ec ker, as trust ee , and l i st s D avi s a s th e r e g i s t e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f I F G- S E C , o p e n e d a n i n v e s tm e n ta c c o u n twi th I F GS E C , w hi c h w oul d pr ovi de the T rus tw i th br oke ra nd por t f ol i o a dvi s ors e r vi c e s f

or the pu rc hase and sal e of s ec uri t i es . A gree m enton e c on t ai ns an arbi tra t i on cl ause , w h ic h s ta te s th a t “[ a ]n y c o n tr o v e r s y b e tw e e n u s a r is in g o u t o f o u rb u s in e s s o rth is agre em entshal l be subm i t t ed t o arbi tra t i on cond uct ed before the N at i on al A ss oci at i on of S ec uri t i es D ea l er s I nc. , i n acc ordance w i th t hei r rul es . ” O n D ec em ber 7, 19 96 , the T rustexec ut ed a docum entthatop ened anot her ac coun tw i th IF G -S E C (“ agre em enttw o”). A gree m enttw o al so cont ai ns an arbi tra t i on cl ause , w hi ch prov i des that“ [i ] ti s a gree d t hatany c on trovers y betw ee n m y s e lf a n d I F G N S a r is in g o u t o f th e b u s in e s s o f

I F G N S o rth is A g r e e m e n t . . . 5 s ha l l be s ubm i t t e d t o a rbi tr a t i on c onduc t e d unde rthe C ode of A rbi tr a t i on P roce du re , then app l yi ng , of the N at i on al A ss oci at i on of S ec uri t i es D ea l er s, Inc. ” T he r e c or d c opy of

a gr e e m e nttw o i s pr a c t i c a l l y i l l e gi bl e , a nd the l i ne c ont a i ni ng the part i es si gn atures i s c utoff. H ow ever , i ti s c l ea r thatthe ac coun tw as op ened o n b e h a lf o f th e T ru s t. O n O ct ob er18 , 19 98 , the T rustexec ut ed a docum entop eni ng anot herIt is apparent that at least two of the three agreements contained in the record are 6 inc omp le te . A gre e ment o neis m iss ingpag e s. Agre e ment t wo is v ir tually ill e g ibl eand

is o nly on epag e , even th ough th edo c ument indic ate s th at it had a revers esideto i t. 8 a c c o u n tw i th I FG - SEC ( “ a g r e e me n tth r e e ” ) . A g r e e me n tth r e e i s th e s a me doc um e nta s a gr e e m e nttw o a nd c ont a i ns the s a m e a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e . A gr e e m e nt th r e e w a s s ig n e d b y B e c k e ra s tru s te e a n d D a v is a s a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f I F G - S E C . H ow e ve r , a gr e e m e ntthr e e c ont a i ns a n a ddi t i ona l pa ge tha tl i m i t s the ty pe of s e r vi c e s pr ovi de d by I F G - S E C t o the T rus t . P a r a gr aph tw e l ve on the s e c ond pa ge 6 of agree m entthree st at es thatthe re pres ent at i ve, “ m i gh toffe r non -s ec uri t i es prod uct s a nd se rvi ce s. I a l so un ders t and al l no n-se curi t i es prod uct s a nd se rvi ce s a r e o u ts id e R e p r e s e n ta tiv e ’s r e la tio n s h ip w ith I F G N S a n d a s s u c h I s h a ll h o ld I F G N S h a r m le s s f

o ra n y lo s s I m a y in c u ra s s o c ia te d w ith n o n - s e c u r itie s p r o d u c ts a nd s e r vi c e s . ” A gr e e m e ntthr e e de s c r i be s s uc h non- s e c ur i t i e s pr oduc t s a nd se rvi ce s a s i nsurance, re al es t at e, ac coun t i ng , t ax prepara t i on , and fi nanci al p la n n in g , a m o n g o th e rth in g s . R el yi ng on these three agre em ent s, the defendant s f i l ed a m ot i on t o com pel a rbi tr a t i on of

a l l the c ount s a ga i ns tthe m i n the c om pl a i nt , both the c ount s br ought o n b e h a lf o f th e T ru s t, a s w e ll a s th e c o u n ts b r o u g h t o n b e h a lf o f B e c k e r . I n its order grant i ng i n p ar tand d enyi ng i n p ar tthe defendant s’ m ot i on , the di stri ctcourt m ade three se para t e rul i ng s, ea ch of w hi ch i s bef ore us on app ea l . F i rs t , the di stri ctIn it s o rde r, thedis tric t c ourt re fers to t

hede fend ants IF G- SEC and IF G- AS a s Multi 7 Financ ial Securities Corp., the suc cessor corporation. 9 co u rtd en i ed th e d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n as i trel at ed t o B eck er’ s i n d i v i d u al cl ai m s, b e c a u s e B e c k e r , in h e rin d iv id u a l c ap a c ity , w a s n o t a s ig n a to r y to th e a g r e e m e n ts . S e c o n d , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tf o u n d th a to n l y th e d e f

e n d a n t s Da v i s , I F G- S E C , a n d I F GA S c oul d c om pe l the T rus tt o a rbi tr a t e , f orthe othe rde f

e nda nt s , F a l c on F M a nd 7 F a lc o n F P , w e r e n o t s ig n a to r ie s to th e a g r e e m e n ts . T h ir d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld tha tB e c ke ra nd the T rus t ’ s c l a i m f ora n a c c ount i ng of

the T rus t ’ s a s s e t s di d not a r is e f r o m th e “b u s in e s s ” a s r e f e r r e d to in th e th r e e a g r e e m e n ts , a n d th e r e f o r e , th is c l a i m w a s nots ubj e c tt o a rbi tr a t i on. T o de c i de thi s appe a l , w e r e vi e w the s c ope of the thr e e a rbi tr a t i on a g r e e m e n ts b e tw e e n th e T ru s t a n d th e d e f e n d a n ts , a n d e n g a g e in a p a in s ta k in g ly th o r o u g h r e v ie w o f

a tw e n ty - c o u n t, 1 1 0 p a g e c o m p la in t. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o com pel arbi tra t i on . ” J

e n ki n s v . Fi rs t

Am . Ca s h Adv a n c e o

f G a . , LLC , 400 F . 3d 868, 873 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We a l s o r e v i e w de nov o a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n t o d en y a m o tio n to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty w a s n o t a s ig n a to r y . M

S D e a le rSe r v . C o r

p . v . Fr a n klin , 1 7 7 F .3 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ONThe sec ond step in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration is to determine “whether 8 leg al constraints ex ternal to the parties’ agreement fore closed a rbitration.” Mi tsu bis hi M oto rs , 473 U.S. at 628, 105 S. Ct . at 3355. B eca use the pa rties dispute only

the scopeof the agreements, and not their enf orcement, we ne ed not discuss the sec ond step of the a nalysis. 10 A . S c o p e o f

th e A rb itr a tio n A g r e e m e n ts T he f i r s ts t e p i n de t e r m i ni ng the pr opr i e ty of a m ot i on t o c om pe l a rbi tr a t i on pur s ua ntt o S e c t i on 4 of the F e de r a l A rbi tr a t i on A c t( “ F A A ” ) i s “ t o de t e r m i ne w hether the part i es agre ed t o arbi tra t e the di sput e. ” Kla y v . A ll D e

fe n da n ts , 389 F . 3d 1191, 1200 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng Mi t subishiMot ors C orp. v. So l er C hrys l er -P l

ym ou th Inc. , 473 U . S . 614, 626, 105 S . C t . 3346, 3353, 87 L . E d. 2d 444 ( 1985) ) . W hi l e the r e i s a l i be r a l f e de r a l pol i c y f

a vor i ng a rbi tr a t i on 8 agre em ent s, “ the F A A ’ s s trong proarbi tra t i on po l i cy on l y app l i es t o d i sput es that the part i es have agree d t o arbi tra t e. ” Id . A pa r ty c a nnotbe f or c e d t o a rbi tr a t e a ny d is p u te th a t th e p a r ty h a s n o t a g r e e d to s u b m it to a rb itr a tio n . Se e V o lt I n fo . Sc is ., Inc. v. B d. of

T rs . of the L elan d S tan

f ord Jun i or U

ni v. , 4 8 9 U . S. 4 6 8 , 4 7 9 , 1 0 9 S. C t . 12 48 , 12 56 , 10 3 L . E d 2 d 4 88 (198 9) (“ A rbi tra t i on un der the [F A A ] i s am att er o f c o n s e n t, n o t c o e r c io n . . .” ) . In agree m enton e, the part i es agre ed t o arbi tra t e “ any c on trovers y betw ee n u s a r is in g o u t o f

o u rb u s in e s s o rth is a g r e e m e n t.” T h e a rb itr a tio n c la u s e s in a gr e e m e nt s tw o a nd thr e e a r e s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o a gr e e m e ntone ’ s a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e i n tha tthe pa r t i e s a gr e e d t o a rbi tr a t e “ a ny c ontr ove r s y be tw e e n m y s e l f a nd11

IF G N S ar i si ng ou tof the bu si ness of IF G N S or thi s a gree m ent . ” A l l three a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e s s t a t e tha tthe a rbi t e rof a ny pot e nt i a l di s put e w oul d be the N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f S e c u r itie s D e a le r s , I n c . ( “N A S D ” ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g th a t th e “b u s in e s s ” r e f e r r e d to in th e a rb itr a tio n c la u s e s w a s th e b u s in e s s o f p r o v id in g in v e s tm e n t s e rv ic e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e b u y in g a n d s e llin g s e c u r itie s . T h is is e v id e n c e d b y th e p la in la n g u a g e o f

th e a g r e e m e n ts . A g r e e m e n t o n e o u tlin e s th a t th e p o r tf o lio a d v is o rw ill m a ke r e c om m e nda t i ons t o the T rus t“ w i th r e s pe c tt o i nve s tm e nta nd r e i nve s tm e nt of the as se t s i n t he A cc ou nti n n o-l oad i nv es tm entcom pany shar es (no l oad m utual f unds ) ori n l oa d i nve s tm e ntc om pa ny s ha r e s a tthe i rne ta s s e tva l ue . ” A gr e e m e nt on e a l so nam es a s peci fi c r epre se nt at i ve t o h andl e a l l sa l e a nd pu rc hase orders di re ct ed t o i tby the brok erand al so t o h andl e other c ust od i al funct i on s per form ed w ith r e s p e c t to th e s e c u r ity b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t. A g r e e m e n t th r e e s p e c if ic a lly lim its th e e x te n t o f th e a g r e e m e n t to c o v e ro n ly se curi ty r el at ed prod uct s a nd se rvi ce s a nd expres sl y e xcl ud es no n-se curi ty s ervi ce s s u c h a s a d v ic e o n a c c o u n tin g , r e a l e s ta te , ta x p r e p a r a tio n , a n d f in a n c ia l p la n n in g . A g r e e me n tth r e e a l s o s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s th a t“ [ th e c l i e n t ] ap p o i n t s I FG N S a s my ag en tfo r th e p u rp o se o f carrying o u tm y d i rect i o n s w i th resp ectt o th e p u rch ase a nd s a l e of

s e c ur i t i e s a nd, a s s uc h, I F G N S i s a uthor i z e d t o ope n orc l os e br oke r a ge12

a c c o u n ts , p la c e a n d w ith d r a w o r d e r s a n d ta k e s u c h o th e rs te p s a s a r e r e a s o n a b le to ca rry outm y di re ct i on s. ” T here fore , the part i es agre ed t o arbi tra t e a l l di sput es c o n c e r n in g th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ s e c u r ity r e la te d in v e s tm e n t a d v ic e to th e T ru s t. B. Be c k e r ’ s I n d i v i d u a l Cl a i ms 1. B ec ker a s aN on si gn at ory H avi ng ou t l i ned t he sc op e of the arbi tra t i on agre em ent s, w e nextconsi der w he the rB e c ke r , a s a nons i gna t or y t o the s e a gr e e m e nt s , c a n be bound by the agre em ent s’ arbi tra t i on cl ause s. T he defendant s a rgue thatthe di stri ctcourterre d in f in d in g th a t B e c k e rd id n o t h a v e to a rb itr a te h e rin d iv id u a l c la im s s im p ly be c a us e s he w a s nota s i gna t or y t o the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s . W e a gr e e t o the e xt e nt tha tB e c ke r ’ s i ndi vi dua l c l a i m s r e l y upon the t e r m s of the a gr e e m e nt s a nd a t t e m pt to h o ld th e d e f

e n d a n ts to th e s e te r m s .

“ A l tho ug h arbi tra t i on i s acont ra ctual ri gh tthati s gener al l y pre di ca t ed on an e x p r e s s d e c is io n to w a iv e th e r ig h t to tr ia l in a ju d ic ia l f o ru m , th is c o u r t h a s h e ld th a t th e la c k o f

a w r itte n a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t is n o t a n im p e d im e n t to a rb itr a tio n .” Su nkist So f t D ri nks, Inc. v. Su nkist

G row er s, Inc. , 10 F . 3d 75 3, 75 6-57 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) . C e r ta in e x c e p tio n s , s u c h a s e q u ita b le e s to p p e l, c a n b in d a n o n s ig n a to r y to a n a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t. Id . at75 7. T he defendant s c i t e B l i nco v. G re en T re e Se r v i c i n g, LLC , 400 F . 3d 1308 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; a nd McB r o P lanni ng &13

D e v e l opm e nt

v . T r i angl e E l e c tr i c al

C ons tr uc t i on C o. , 74 1 F . 2d 34 2 (11 th C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) ; in s u p p o r t o f

th is a r g u m e n t. I n B l i nco , M r . a nd M r s . B l i nc o, a hus ba nd a nd w i f e , s i gne d a nd e xe c ut e d a m ort gage. M r. B l i nco al on e s i gn ed and execut ed the prom i ss ory not e that cont ai ned an arbi tra t i on cl ause . L at er , the B l i ncos brou gh tan ac t i on agai nstG re en T re e, w ho ow ned t he m ort gage, for vi ol at i ng the R ea l E st at e S ett l em entP roce du re s A c t . W e he l d tha te ve n though M r s . B l i nc o w a s nota s i gna t or y on the not e , s he w a s b o u n d b y th e a rb itr a tio n c la u s e b e c a u s e “[ e ]q u ita b le e s to p p e l p r e c lu d e s a p a r ty f r o m c la im in g th e b e n e f

its o f a c o n tr a c t w h ile s im u lta n e o u s ly a tte m p tin g to a v o id the bu rdens thatcont ra cti m po se s. ” Id . at1 3 1 2 S i n ce M rs. B l i n co ’ s cl ai m s ag ai n st Gr e e n T r e e d e r i v e d f

r o m h e rs t a tu s a s a b o r r o we ru n d e rth e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e , we h e l d th a ts h e c o u l d n o tr e l y o n th e n o t e t o e s t a b l i s h h e rc l a i ms a n d a tth e s a me t i me s e e k to a v o id th e o b lig a tio n to a rb itr a te h e rc la im s . Id . I n McB ro , w e a l s o he l d tha ta pa r ty m a y be e qui t a bl y e s t oppe d f r om a s s e r t i ng tha tthe l a c k of a w r i t t e n a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e ntpr e c l ude s a rbi tr a t i on. 741 F .2 d a t 3 4 4 . T h e p la in tif f , a g e n e r a l c o n tr a c to r , e n te r e d in to a n a g r e e m e n t to re no vat e aho spi t al . T he agree m entcont ai ned an arbi tra t i on cl ause , as w el l as re fe re nces t o t he construct i on m anager, M cB ro. T he agree m ental so det ai l ed M cB ro’ s dut i es . A ft erthe proj ec tbegan, the general cont ra ct or al l eged thatM cB ro14

i nt er fe re d w i th i t s w ork, and t he cont ra ct or fi l ed an act i on al l egi ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, cont ra ctual i nt er fe re nce a nd negl i gence counts . M cB ro m ov ed the di stri ct c our tt o c om pe l a rbi tr a t i on, a nd the c our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on. T he c ontr a c t or ar gu ed thati tdi d n othave a w ri t t en agree m entw i th M cB ro, and t he F eder al A rb itr a tio n A c t r e q u ir e s th a t th e r e b e a w r itte n a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n p a r tie s to a rb itr a te . W e a f f ir m e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rc o m p e llin g a rb itr a tio n . Id . a t 3 4 4 . W e s ta te d th a t a lth o u g h th e c o n tr a c t b e tw e e n th e c o n tr a c to ra n d th e h o s p ita l a c tu a lly di s c l a i m e d a ny c ontr a c tua l r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the c ontr a c t ora nd M c B r o, “ the general cond i t i on s of thatcont ra ctar e r epl et e w i th ref er ence s t o M cB ro’ s dut i es as c ons truc t i on m a na ge r. . . [ w i th] r e ga r ds t o the s upe r vi s i on of the pr oj e c t ” a nd “ the c ontr a c t or ’ s c l a i m s a r e ‘ i nt i m a t e l y f ounde d i n a nd i nt e r tw i ne d w i th the unde r l y i ng cont ra ctob l i gat i on s. ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng H u g h e s M a s o n r y C o . v . G r e a te rC la rk

C o u n ty Sc h. B ldg. C or

p. , 6 5 9 F. 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 1 n . 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . I n a s s e r t i n g i t s c l a i ms a g a in s t M c B r o , th e c o n tr a c to rw a s r e ly in g o n th e a g r e e m e n t w ith th e h o s p ita l a s it re l at ed t o M cB ro’ s dut i es ; there fore , the cont ra ct or coul d b e e qu i t abl y e st op ped f r o m th e n r e p u d ia tin g th e a rb itr a tio n c la u s e c o n ta in e d in th e s a m e a g r e e m e n t. Id . B l i nco a nd McB ro es t abl i sh thati f aparty r el i es on the t erm s of aw ri t t en a gr e e m e nti n a s s e r t i ng the pa r ty ’ s c l a i m s , tha tpa r ty i s e qui t a bl y e s t oppe d f r om15

the n s e e ki ng t o a voi d a n a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e w i thi n the a gr e e m e nt . T he r e f or e , t o the e xt e nttha tB e c ke ri s r e l y i ng upon the t e r m s of the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s a nd a t t e m pt i ng to h o ld th e d e f

e n d a n ts to th o s e te r m s in a s s e r tin g h e rin d iv id u a l c la im s , s h e is b o u n d b y th e a rb i tr a t i o n c l a u s e s c o n t a i n e d i n th o s e a g r e e m e n t s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we m u s t f o c u s o n th e n a tu r e o f

B e c k e r ’s in d iv id u a l c la im s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts to det erm i ne w hether her cl ai m s f al l w i thi n t he sc op e of the arbi tra t i on cl ause s co n t ai n ed i n th e ag reem en t s.

2. A pp l i cabi l i ty of the A rbi tra t i on A gree m ent s t o B ec ker’ s I nd i vi du al Cl a i ms C i t i ng McB ro , the de f

e nda nt s a r gue tha ts i nc e e a c h c ounti n the c om pl a i nt i n co rp o rat es al l eg at i o n s th atth e d efen d an t s fai l ed t o p ro v i d e B eck er an d th e T ru st w i th pr ope ri nve s tm e nta dvi c e , B e c ke r ’ s i ndi vi dua l c l a i m s a r e i nt e r tw i ne d w i th or conn ec t ed t o t he agree m ent s thatcont ai n t he arbi tra t i on cl ause s. T here fore , the d e f e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t a ll o f B e c k e r ’s in d iv id u a l c la im s a r e s u b je c t to a rb itr a tio n . O urhol di ng i n McB ro d o e s n o t c o m p e l a f in d in g th a t a ll

the di s put e s i n the c om pl a i nta r e s ubj e c tt o a rbi tr a t i on. I n McB ro , w e a d o p ted th e S ev en th C ircu it ’s r e a s oni ng i n H

ug hes tha ta pl a i nt i f

f’ s c l a i m s w e r e s ubj e c tt o a rbi tr a t i on i f i n the c om pl a i ntthe pl a i nt i f

f w a s a t t e m pt i ng t o hol d the de f e nda ntt o the t e r m s of

the a g r e e m e n t th a t c o n ta in e d a n a rb itr a tio n c la u s e . 7 4 1 F .2 d a t 3 4 4 . O n ly th e n w o u ld the pl a i nt i f

f’ s c l a i m s be “ ‘ i nt i m a t e l y f ounde d i n a nd i nt e r tw i ne d w i th theIn Count S even, B ecker re alleg es paragraphs 1–113. 9 16 un derl yi ng cont ra ctob l i gat i on s. ’ ” Id .; see Su n kist , 10 F . 3d a t757 ( s t a t i ng tha tthe de c i s i on i n McB ro “r e s t[ e d ] o n th e f o u n d a tio n th a t u ltim a te ly , [ th e ] p a r ty m u s t r e ly u p o n th e te r m s o f

th e w r itte n a g r e e m e n t in a s s e r tin g [ th e p a r ty ’s ] c la im s ” ) . I n th is c a s e , n o t a ll a s p e c ts o f B e c k e r ’s c la im s r e ly u p o n o ra tte m p t to h o ld the de f e nda nt s t o the t e r m s of

the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s . F ore xa m pl e , i n C ountS e ve n, B ec ker a l l eges thatthe defendant s bre ac hed a fi du ci ary dut y ow ed t o h eras an in d iv id u a l. N o t a ll a s p e c ts o f th is c o u n t c o n c e r n in v e s tm e n t a d v ic e to th e T ru s t. 9 P a r a g r ap h s 5 4

– 6 4 a lle g e th a t in e a r ly 1 9 9 6 , p r io rto th e c r e a tio n o f th e T ru s t, B e c k e ra n d h e rf

r ie n d S u s a n B e r g e rp u r c h a s e d ap p r o x im a te ly 1 7 5 a c r e s o f la n d to tr a in a n d b o a r d h o r s e s . B e c k e ra n d B e r g e ro w n e d th e f a r m a s jo in t te n a n ts w ith ri gh tof survi vo rs hi p, and B ec ker i ncorpo ra t ed the bu si ness , nam i ng i tB roken F i d d l e. B eck er b o rro w ed a l arg e su m o f m o n ey i n o rd er t o o p erat e th e b u si n ess a n d s e c u r e d th e n o te w ith th e f a r m ’s m o r tg a g e . B e c k e ra lle g e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts D a vi s , T i l l m a n, a nd K i ng ga ve he rpoorf i na nc i a l a dvi c e a s t o the s truc tur e of the not e a nd m or t ga ge , a nd the y f a i l e d t o s e c ur e B e r ge r ’ s f i na nc i a l obl i ga t i ons t o the bus i ne s s . I n pa r a gr aphs 66–68, B e c ke ra l l e ge s tha ts he pr ovi de d appr oxi m a t e l y $2 m illio n o f

f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e to B r o k e n F id d le , a n d D a v is p e r m itte d B e c k e rto f ile a r e por tw i th the I nt e r na l R e ve nue S e r vi c e tha tthe f i na nc i a l a s s i s t a nc e t o the17

bu si ness w as a gi ftand n ota l oan o r a n i nv es tm ent . T here fore , D avi s a l l ow ed B e c k e rto f

o r f e it s u b s ta n tia l in c o m e ta x b e n e f its . In these al l egat i on s, B ec ker i s notre l yi ng on or att em pt i ng t o h ol d t he de f e nda nt s t o the t e r m s a nd dut i e s c ont a i ne d i n the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s . T o f i nd othe r w i s e w oul d l e a d t o a n i l l ogi c a l r e s ul t . T he t e r m s a nd dut i e s c ont a i ne d i n the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s r e f

e rt o the de f

e nda nt s ’ obl i ga t i ons t o the T rus tc onc e r ni ng s e c ur i ty i nve s tm e nt s . I f w e w e r e t o f

i nd tha ti n the a bove a l l e ga t i ons , s om e of w h ic h o c c u r r e d p r io rto th e c r e a tio n o f th e T ru s t, th a t B e c k e ris a tte m p tin g to h o ld th e d efen d an t s t o th e t erm s an d d u t i es i n th e ag reem en t s an d th erefo re sen d th ese d is p u te s to a rb itr a tio n , th e N A S D w o u ld b e r e q u ir e d to a rb itr a te a d is p u te c onc e r ni ng D a vi s ’ s a dvi c e t o B e c ke ra boutthe s truc tur e of the f a r m ’ s m or t ga ge and t he fi l i ng of her pers on al i ncom e t ax re turn. T hese ar e notthe type of di sput es tha tthe pa r t i e s a gr e e d t o a rbi tr a t e i n the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s . M or e ove r , a gr e e m e nt thr e e s pe c i f

i c a l l y e xc l ude s r e a l e s t a t e a nd t a x pr e pa r a t i on di s put e s f r om the agre em ent . O ur ca se l aw fore cl oses us fr om forc i ng part i es t o arbi tra t e di sput es th a t th e y d id n o t a g r e e to a rb itr a te . Klay , 3 8 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 0 . W e a ckno w l edge thatm any di sput es cont ai ned w i thi n C ou ntS even are c ove r e d by the a gr e e m e nt s a nd a r e thus s ubj e c tt o a rbi tr a t i on. P a r a gr aph 176 s pe c i f i c a l l y a l l e ge s tha tD a vi s ’ s de c i s i on t o i nve s ti n C N L w a s uns ui t a bl e f ortheIn Count Nine, Be cker realleg es the factual alleg ations set forth in paragraphs 1–53 10 and 69–113. 18 T rus t . T hi s di s put e c l e a r l y f a l l s w i thi n the s c ope of

the a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nt s , a nd B e c k e r , a s a n o n s ig n a to r y , is b o u n d to a rb itr a te th is d is p u te , b e c a u s e in th is in s ta n c e , s h e is a tte m p tin g to h o ld th e d e f e n d a n ts to th e te r m s o f

th e a g r e e m e n ts . W e f u r th e ra c k n o w le d g e th a t th e m a n n e rin w h ic h th e c o m p la in t is p le d is prob l em at i c bec ause m any, i f notal l , of B ec ker’ s i nd i vi du al cl ai m s a gai nstthe d e f e n d a n ts c o n ta in b o th a rb itr a b le a n d n o n - a rb itr a b le d is p u te s . F o re x a m p le , in C ountN i ne , B e c ke ra l l e ge s tha tthe de f e nda nt s e nga ge d i n f

r a ud a nd de c e i t . S he 10 general l y a l l eges that“ D ef endantD avi s f

al se l y r epre se nt ed t o P l ai nt i ff that e ve r y thi ng he di d w a s i nt e nde d t o pr ot e c ta nd e nha nc e he rf i na nc i a l i nt e r e s t s , ” a nd tha thi s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons a nd pr om i s e s t o he rw e r e f a l s e . P a r a gr aphs 74–88 s p e c if ic a lly r e f e rto in v e s tm e n ts c o n c e r n in g th e T ru s t. T h e s e d is p u te s a r e w ith in the sc op e of the arbi tra t i on agre em ent s a nd ar e thu s a rbi trabl e. H ow ever , para graphs 90 –9 2 al l ege thatD avi s opened a m on ey m arketac coun tw i th S cudd er I n v e s tm e n t s i n th e n a m e o f “ AN NE S . B E C KE R & J OH N A . DA VI S J R J T WR OS ( a s j oi ntt e na nt s w i th r i ghtof s ur vi vor s hi p) . ” B e c ke ra l l e ge s tha ts he ne ve rga ve D a v is “a n y r ig h t, title , o rin te r e s t” to h e rm o n e y th a t w a s d e p o s ite d in th e a c c o u n t. T hi s a s pe c tof

C ountN i ne i s notw i thi n the s c ope of the a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nt s , f or th i s al l eg at i o n d o es n o ti m p l i cat e a d i sp u t e co n cern i n g th e acco u n t s th atth e T ru stCount O nedo e s n ot s e e k re lie f ag ains t D e fend ant F a lc on F P. 11 In Count One, Be cker

realleg es the factual alleg ations in paragraphs 1–53, 69–88, 12 90–92, and 110–113. 19 o p e n e d w ith I F G - S E C f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

b u y in g a n d s e llin g s e c u r itie s . I t is th e r e f o r e n o ts u b

j e c tt o a rb i tr a t i o n . Wh i l e i two u l d b e m u c h e a s i e rt o d o s o , we w ill n o t s e n d c le a r ly n o n - a rb itr a b le d is p u te s to a rb itr a tio n m e r e ly b e c a u s e a c o u n t, a s p le d , c o n ta in s b o th a rb itr a b le a n d n o n - a rb itr a b le d is p u te s . T he com pl ai nt ’ s i ncl usi on of bo th arbi trabl e a nd no n-arbi trabl e di sput es w i thi n a si ng l e c ou nti s a l so evi denti n C ou ntO ne. In C ou ntO ne, B ec ker a l l eges th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts v io la te d th e F lo r id a S e c u r itie s a n d I n v e s to rP r o te c tio n A c t.

11 12 P a r a g r ap h s 4 9

– 5 3 a lle g e th a t in F e b ru a r y 1 9 9 6 , b e f o r e th e c r e a tio n o f

th e T ru s t, B e c k e re n t e r e d i n t o a n I n v e s tm e n tMa n a g e m e n tAg r e e m e n twi th De f e n d a n tDK E on the advi ce of D avi s, and D avi s s ec ured an i m prop er“ ki ck back” fe e arra ng em entfor the benefi tof the defendant s. P ar agraph s 74– 78 al l ege that pu rs uantt o D avi s’ s a dv i ce , the T rusti nv es t ed i n t he C N L and t hi s i nv es tm entw as no tsui t abl e f

or the T rust . C ou ntO ne al l eges thati n con nect i on w i th t he offer , sa l e, or pu rc hase of any i nv es tm entor se curi ty, the defendant s a ct s or pra ct i ce s c o n s titu te d a s c h e m e to d e f r a u d in v io la tio n o f

F lo r id a S ta tu te § 5 1 7 .3 0 1 ( 1 ) . A t f ir s t b lu s h , it ap p e a r s th a t B e c k e ris a tte m p tin g to h o ld th e d e f e n d a n ts to the t e r m s a nd dut i e s c ont a i ne d i n the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s ; the r e f or e , s he s houl d notbe20

a bl e t o a voi d the a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e s c ont a i ne d i n thos e a gr e e m e nt s , a nd C ountO ne s h o u ld b e s e n t to a rb itr a tio n . H o w e v e r , B e c k e ro p e n e d h e rin d iv id u a l a c c o u n t w ith D K E pr i ort o the c r e a t i on of the T rus t . T he doc um e nt s tha tB e c ke rc l a i m e d s he si gn ed t o o pen t he ac coun tw i th D K E ar e notpartof the re cord. T here fore , the de f e nda nt s , t o the e xt e nttha tthe y w e r e i nvol ve d i n the pur c ha s e a nd s a l e of s e c u r itie s th r o u g h B e c k e r ’s in d iv id u a l D K E a c c o u n t, o w e d to B e c k e ra d u ty n o t to e m pl oy a s c he m e t o de f r a ud he rba s e d on the i ri nve s tm e nta dvi c e i nde pe nde ntof th e th ree ag reem en t s th atth e T ru stl at er en t ered i n t o w i th IF G -S E C . A cco rd i n g l y, t o the e xt e nttha tC ountO ne r e l i e s on di s put e s c onc e r ni ng s e c ur i ty i nve s tm e nt s not c onne c t e d t o the T rus t , the s e di s put e s a r e notw i thi n the s c ope of the a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nt s e nt e r e d i nt o by the de f e nda nt s a nd the T rus t , a nd the s e a s pe c t s of C o u n t O n e a r e n o t a rb itr a b le . Se e B r a tt E n te rs ., I n c . v . N o b le I n t’ l L td ., 338 F . 3d 609, 613 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha tonl y the a s pe c t s of pl a i nt i f f’ s br e a c h of c o n tr a c t c la im th a t th e p a r tie s h a d a g r e e d to a rb itr a te w e r e s u b je c t to a rb itr a tio n ) . T he de f e nda nt s a l s o a r gue tha tB e c ke r ’ s a l l e ga t i on tha tthe ve r y c r e a t i on of the T rustw as an un sui t abl e i nv es tm entfor herfi nanci al obj ec t i ves, and h er a l l e ga t i on a s trus t e e tha tc e r t a i n i nve s tm e nt s f orthe T rus tw e r e uns ui t a bl e f orthe T rus ta r e i m pos s i bl e t o s e pa r a t e . W e di s a gr e e . T he T rus tw a s c r e a t e d pr i ort o the t i m e tha tthe T rus tope ne d the a c c ount s w i th I F G - S E C a nd e nt e r e d i nt o theThe documents that cre ated the Trust arenot part of the record. 13 The de fenda

nts also argue that sincethe complaint alleg es that all of Da vis’s acts were 14 done in the cour se and sc ope of his employ ment with IFG- SEC and IFG- AS, Be cker ’s individual claims ariseout of or re late to the purc hase or sales of se curities, which is the “business” re fer red to in th ea gre e ments . H ow e ver, wh e ther o r n ot D avis wa s a c tin gwi thin th esc op eof his employ ment with IFG- SEC and IFG- AS when committing c ertain acts is a sepa ratequestion from what ty

pe of disputes the pa

rties agree d to arbitrate .

21 agre em ent s c on t ai ni ng the arbi tra t i on cl ause s. B ec ker a l l eges thatdo cum ent s use d t o cre at e the T rustcont ai ned u nu sual prov i si on s t o res tri cther abi l i ty t o ever r e p la c e D e f

e n d a n t D a v is a s tru s te e , a n d th is a llo w e d th e d e f e n d a n ts to c o n tr o l a l a r ge pa r tof

he ra s s e t s a nd w a s the r e f or e uns ui t a bl e f

orhe rpe r s ona l i nve s tm e nt obj e c t i ve s . T hi s a l l e ga t i on i s s e pa r a t e a nd di s t i nc tf r om a n a l l e ga t i on tha tthe 13 in v e s tm e n ts th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts e n te r e d in to o n b e h a lf o f th e T ru s t w e r e u n s u ita b le f o rth e T ru s t. 14 T he de f e nda nt s poi ntt o the f

a c ttha tw e ha ve s t a t e d tha t“ i f a l l e ga t i ons un derl yi ng cl ai m s ‘ t ou ch m att er s’ covered by part i es ’ arbi tra t i on agre em ent , then c la im s m u s t b e a rb itr a te d , w h a te v e rle g a l la b e ls a tta c h e d to th e m .” In du s. R isk I ns ur e rs v . M. A . N

. G ut e hof f nungs hut t e G m bH, 14 1 F . 3d 14 34 , 14 48 n. 21 (11t h C i r. 1998) ( c i t i ng G e ne s c o v . T . Kaki uc hi& C o. , 8 1 5 F .2 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 6 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . H ow e ve r , w e ha ve a l s o s t a t e d tha te ve n “ br oa d a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e s c a nnotbe ext ended t o com pel part i es t o arbi tra t e di sput es they have notagre ed t o arbi tra t e. ” Klay , 389 F . 3d a t1195. I n thi s c a s e , w e a r e pr e s e nt e d w i th a c om pl a i nta s s e r t i ng22

c l a i m s tha tc ont a i n both a rbi tr a bl e a nd non- a rbi tr a bl e di s put e s . W hi l e i tm i ghtbe m or e e f f i c i e ntt o s e nd t o a rbi tr a t i on a l l the di s put e s c ont a i ne d i n a l l the c l a i m s , the p a r tie s d id n o t a g r e e to s u c h e f f ic ie n c y . “C o n g r e s s ’s p r e e m in e n t c o n c e r n in enac t i ng the F A A — the enforce m entof pri vat e a gree m ent s t o arbi tra t e a s e nt er ed i nt o b y par t i es — re qu i re s thatthe part i es on l y be c om pel l ed t o arbi tra t e m att er s w i thi n the s c ope of

the i ra gr e e m e nt , a nd thi s i s s o e ve n w he n the r e s ul tm a y be pi ec em ea l l i t i gat i on . ” B r a tt, 33 8 F . 3d at61 3. If the defendant s, w ho w er e prov i di ng advi ce t o b ot h B ec ker a nd t o t he T rust , w ant ed t o arbi tra t e a l l di sput es th a t a r o s e f

r o m a d v ic e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts g a v e to B e c k e rc o n c e r n in g h e ra s s e ts out s i de of the T rus t , the n the de f

e nda nt s s houl d ha ve c ontr a c t e d w i th B e c ke rt o do s o . A c c o r d in g ly , w e f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in c a te g o r ic a lly r e f u s in g to s e n d B e c k e r ’s in d iv id u a l c la im s to a rb itr a tio n b e c a u s e s h e w a s n o t a s ig n a to r y to the agree m ent s. T he three agre em ent s w er e e nt er ed i nt o b y the T rustand t he d efen d an t s an d rel at e t o i n v estm en tad v i ce an d serv i ces co n cern i n g th e p u rch ase a n d s a l e o f

s e c u r i t i e s f

o rth e Tru s t . To th e e x t e n tth a tBe c k e r ’ s i n d i v i d u a l c l a i ms c o n c e r n d is p u te s th a t r e ly u p o n th e te r m s o f th e th r e e a g r e e m e n ts a n d a tte m p t to ho l d t he defendant s t o t ho se t erm s, she c anno tavoi d t he arbi tra t i on cl ause s cont ai ned i n t ho se agre em ent s. B ec ker i s there fore re qu i re d t o arbi tra t e a ny as pect23

of he ri ndi vi dua l c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s tha ti nvol ve di s put e s c onc e r ni ng or re l at i ng t o t he i nv es tm entof se curi t i es on behal f of the T rust , for the part i es agre ed t o a rb i tr a t e th e s e ty p e s o f d i s p u t e s . A l l o th e ra s p e c t s o f h e ri n d i v i d u a l c l a i ms i nvol vi ng di s put e s tha tdo notc onc e r n orr e l a t e t o the i nve s tm e ntof s e c ur i t i e s on be ha l f of the T rus ta r e notw i thi n the s c ope of the a gr e e m e nt s , a nd a r e the r e f or e not s u b je c t to a rb itr a tio n . C . T he D ef

endant s F al con F M and F al con F P as N on si gn at ori es T he defendant s a rgue thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tconcl ud ed that be c a us e the de f

e nda nt s F a l c on F M a nd F a l c on F P w e r e nots i gna t or i e s t o the agre em ent s, they c ou l d n otcom pel arbi tra t i on of the cl ai m s a gai nstthem . T he defe nd ant s a rgue thatsi nce the com pl ai ntal l eges a c on spi ra cy betw ee n si gn at ory defe nd ant s a nd no nsi gn at ory def endant s, equi t abl e e st op pel al l ow s ano nsi gn at ory defe nd antt o com pel arbi tra t i on . W e a gree . T h e co m p l ai n tal l eg es th at“ [a] l l o f D efen d an tD av i s’ act s, m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , o m is s io n s , a n d o th e rw r o n g d o in g c o m p la in e d o f h e r e in o c c u r r e d w h ile [ D a v is ] w a s a c tin g w ith in th e s c o p e a n d d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f h is e m pl oy m e ntw i th the de f e nda nt s F a l c on F M [ a nd] F a l c on F P . ” T he c om pl a i nt f u r th e ra lle g e s th a t: W orki ng t og ether w hi l e app ea ri ng t o b e i nd ependentof on e a no ther e nabl ed [ a l l ] D e f e nda nt s t o i nduc e P l a i nt i f f t o a dopta f

unda m e nt a l f

i na nc i a l s tr a t e gy24

and structure . . . thatw as un sui t abl e f or her pers on al i nv es tm entobj ec t i ves a nd f i na nc i a l s i tua t i on; a nd e na bl e d the m t o i nduc e P l a i nt i f f t o a uthor i z e the i m pl e m e nt a t i on of

c e r t a i n of

the i rr e c om m e nda t i ons a nd c our s e s of a c t i on th a t w e r e s u p p o s e d ly in h e rb e s t in te r e s t, b u t in f a c t w e r e c a lc u la te d to s u b tly buti ntr a c t a bl y vi c t i m i z e P l a i nt i f f a nd be ne f

i tthe m , i ns t e a d, by a l l ow i ng th em t o o b t ai n a su b st an t i al am o u n to f P l ai n t i ff’ s w eal th o v er m an y years. P la in tif f s in c o rp o r a te d th e s e a lle g a tio n s in to a ll th e irc la im s . W e s t at ed thatthe “ ‘ appl i ca t i on of equi t abl e e st op pel i s w arra nt ed . . . w hen the s i gna t or y [ t o the c ontr a c tc ont a i ni ng the a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e ] r a i s e s a l l e ga t i ons of

. . . s ubs t a nt i a l l y i nt e r de pe nde nta nd c onc e r t e d m i s c onduc tby both the no nsi gn at ory a nd on e or m ore of the si gn at ori es t o t he cont ra ct . ’ ” M S D eal er , 177 F . 3d a t947 ( a l t e r a t i ons a nd om i s s i ons i n or i gi na l ) . I n M S D eal er , F r a nkl i n bought a c arfr om Ji m B urke M ot ors, Inc. F ra nk l i n and Ji m B urke execut ed a “ B uyer s O r de r ” tha tc ont a i ne d a n a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nt . T he B uy e r s O r de ri nc orpor a t e d by re fe re nce aR et ai l Inst al l m entC on tra cti n w hi ch F ra nk l i n w as char ged a fee for a s e r vi c e c ontr a c tthr ough M S D e a l e r . M S D e a l e rw a s notas i gna t or y t o e i the rthe B u y e r s C o n tr a c t o rth e R e ta il I n s ta llm e n t C o n tr a c t. A f t e rdi s c ove r i ng de f

e c t s i n the c a r , F r a nkl i n f i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tJ i m B ur ke a n d MS D e a l e rf

o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t , f

r a u d , a n d c o n s p i r a c y i n s t a t e c o u r t . MS D e a l e rf i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n f

e d e r a l c o u r tt o c o mp e l Fr a n k l i n t o a rb i tr a t e h e rc l a i ms a g a in s t it. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e p e titio n f in d in g th a t M S D e a le rw a s n o t a s ig n a to r y o n th e c o n tr a c ts ; th e r e f o r e , it d id n o t h a v e s ta n d in g to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n .25

W e r ever se d. W e s t at ed thatF ra nk l i n’ s c l ai m s a gai nstB urke and M S D ea l er“ ar e base d o n t he sa m e f

ac t s a nd i nh er ent l y i nsepar abl e. ” Id . a t948 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m arks om i t t ed). F ra nk l i n’ s c l ai m thatB urke and M S D ea l erconspi re d w i th eac h othe ra nd s c he m e d t o de f r a ud he rw e r e “ a l l e ga t i ons of s uc h pr e - a r r a nge d, c ol l us i ve b e h a v io r[ th a t th e y ] e s ta b lis h [ ] th a t [ h e r ] c la im s a g a in s t [ M S D e a le ra r e ] in tim a te ly foun ded i n an i nt er tw i ned w i th o bl i gat i on s i m po se d b y the [B uyer s O rder . ] ” Id . ( a lte r a tio n s in o r ig in a l) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T h e r e f o r e , F r a n k lin w as equi t abl y e st op ped from avoi di ng arbi tra t i on w i th M S D ea l er . I n th e c a s e b e f

o r e u s , th e T ru s t’s c la im s a lle g e th a t b o th s ig n a to r ie s ( D a v is a n d I F G ) a n d n o n s ig n a to r ie s ( F a lc o n F M a n d F a lc o n F P ) to th e a g r e e m e n ts c ol l a bor a t e d t o m a ke uns ound f i na nc i a l de c i s i ons , w hi c h ul t i m a t e l y l os tm one y f or the T rus t . T he r e f

or e , the T rus t ’ s a l l e ga t i ons of c ol l us i ve be ha vi ora ga i ns tthe s ig n a to r ie s a n d n o n s ig n a to r ie s “a r e in tim a te ly f o u n d e d in a n d in te r tw in e d w ith o b l i g a t i o n s i m p o s e d ” b y th e a g r e e m e n t s th e T ru s te n t e r e d i n t o wi th Da v i s a n d I F GS E C . Se e id . ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e T ru s t is e q u ita b ly e s to p p e d f

r o m a v o id in g a rb itr a tio n w ith F a lc o n F M a n d F a lc o n F P . B e c ke ri s a l s o e qui t a bl y e s t oppe d f r om a voi di ng a rbi tr a t i on w i th F a l c on F M a nd F a l c on F P t o the e xt e nttha the ri ndi vi dua l c l a i m s i nvol ve di s put e s tha tr e l y upon th e te r m s o f

th e a g r e e m e n ts .The a rbitration clause s in agreements two and threealso employ the “a rising out of

” 15 languag e. 26 T he pl a i nt i f

f s a t t e m ptt o di s t i ngui s h M S D ea l er by a r gui ng tha tthe a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e i n M

S D ea l er c ont a i ne d br oa d l a ngua ge , w he r e a s the a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e be f

or e us i s m or e na r r ow l y w r i t t e n. I n M S D eal er , th e arb i trat i o n cl au se s t a t e d tha t : “ B uy e rhe r e by a c know l e dge s a nd a gr e e s tha ta l l di s put e s a nd cont rovers i es of every ki nd and n ature betw ee n b uyerand Ji m B urke M ot ors, Inc. ar is i ng out

of ori n c onne c t i on w i th the pur c ha s e of thi s ve hi c l e w i l l be r e s ol ve d by arbi tra t i on . ” Id . a t944 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e i n a gr e e m e ntone st at es th at“ [a] n y co n tro v ersy b etw een u s a r is in go u t o f o u rb u s in e s s o rth is a g r e e m e n t s h a ll b e s u b m itte d to a rb itr a tio n .” (E m ph as i s a dd ed). T he pl ai nt i ff s 15 a r gue tha tthe a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e a ti s s ue doe s notc ont a i n the “ i n c onne c t i on w i th” l angu age r equi re d t o con st i tut e abroad arbi tra t i on cl ause . W e ha ve he l d tha tthe r e w a s no m e a ni ngf ul di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e s tha tha ve “ a r i s i ng outof ” l a ngua ge a nd thos e tha tha ve “ a r i s i ng outof a nd in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” la n g u a g e . G r egor y v . E l e c tr o- Me c h. C or

p. , 83 F . 3d 382, 386 (11t h C i r. 19 96 ). S i nce f eder al po l i cy re qu i re s us t o con strue a rbi tra t i on cl ause s g e n e r o u s ly , r e s o lv in g a ll d o u b ts in f a v o ro f a rb itr a tio n , see G reg o ry , 83 F . 3d at 385- 86, the pl a i nt i f

f s ’ a t t e m ptt o pa r s e the l a ngua ge of the a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e s i s not p e r s u a s iv e .27

D . C ountN i ne t e e n T he de f e nda nt s a l s o a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n r e f us i ng t o s e nd C o u n t N in e te e n , B e c k e ra n d th e T ru s t’s c la im f o ra n a c c o u n tin g o f

th e T ru s t, to a rb itr a tio n . C o u n t N in e te e n a lle g e s th a t D a v is a s tru s te e o f th e T ru s t b r e a c h e d h is duty pur s ua ntt o F l or i da S t a tut e s § 737. 303 t o pr ovi de a nnua l s t a t e m e nt s of the T rus t ’ s a c c ounta nd a l l othe ri nf or m a t i on pe r t a i ni ng t o the T rus t ’ s a s s e t s . T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha tthi s r e que s tf ora n a c c ount i ng di d nota r i s e f r om the

“ b u si n ess” referred t o i n th e th ree ag reem en t s. H o w ev er, an acco u n t i n g i s a r e m e d y a tta c h e d to a s e p a r a te in d e p e n d e n t c a u s e o f a c tio n . See J

oh nson v. P ul lm an , Inc. , 845 F . 2d 911, 913 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( “ A l though pl a i nt i f f’ s c om pl a i nt c ont a i ne d a c ounti n w hi c h a n a c c ount i ng w a s s ought , tha tr e l i e f w oul d notbe a v a ila b le h e r e a b s e n t s o m e in d e p e n d e n t c a u s e o f a c tio n .” ) . A cc ordi ng l y, i f the four subst ant i ve cl ai m s broug htby the T rustagai nstthe defe nd ant s a ri se ou tof the agree m ent s a nd ar e there fore subj ec tt o arbi tra t i on , as the pa r t i e s a gr e e , the T rus t ’ s c l a i m f ora n a c c ount i ng, w hi c h i s m e r e l y a r e m e dy f or a ny l i a bi l i ty , w oul d a l s o a r i s e outof the a gr e e m e nt s . F ur the rm or e , t o the e xt e nt thatB ec ker’ s i nd i vi du al cl ai m s r el y on t he t erm s of the agree m ent s a nd ar e the r e f or e s ubj e c tt o a rbi tr a t i on, B e c ke r ’ s i ndi vi dua l c l a i m f ora n a c c ount i ng of

the T ru s t’s a s s e ts a ls o r e ly o n th e te r m s o f th e a g r e e m e n ts a n d a r e s u b je c t to28

a rbi tr a t i on. A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n nots e ndi ng C ount N in e te e n to a rb itr a tio n . I V . CONCL US I ON W e f in d th at th e d istrict co u rt er re d in h o ld in g th at all asp ec ts o f B ec k er ’s in d iv id u a l c la im s w e r e n o t s u b je c t to a rb itr a tio n b e c a u s e s h e w a s n o t a s ig n a to r y to th e th re e a g re em en ts th at co n tain ed arb itra ti o n clau se s. T o th e e x ten t th at B ec k er ’s c la im s c o n c e r n d is p u te s th a t r e ly u p o n th e te r m s o f th e a g r e e m e n ts a n d a tte m p t to ho l d t he defendant s t o t hese t erm s, she c anno tavoi d t he arbi tra t i on cl ause s cont ai ned i n t ho se agre em ent s. W e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourtt o t he ext entthat B eck er’ s i n d i v i d u al cl ai m s d o n o trel y o n th e t erm s o f th e ag reem en t s. W e al so f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n hol di ng tha tthe de f e nda nt s F a l c on F M a nd F al co n F P co u l d n o tco m p el th e T ru stan d B eck er t o arb i trat e th e cl ai m s ag ai n st the m c onc e r ni ng m a t t e r s tha ta r os e f r om the thr e e a gr e e m e nt s . F i na l l y , w e f i nd th at th e d istrict co u rt er re d in h o ld in g th at C o u n t N in etee n , th e T ru st an d B ec k er ’s cl ai m for a n acc ou nt i ng , w as no tsubj ec tt o arbi tra t i on si nce acl ai m for a n a c c ount i ng i s onl y a r e m e dy a t t a c he d t o a n i nde pe nde ntc a us e of a c t i on. A FFI R M ED i n pa r t ; R EVER SED i n pa r t a nd R EM A N D ED t o the d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .