District Judge of th e South ern District of Tex as, sitting bydesi gn atio n. * Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not ** be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60164

F RE DE RI CKGR I F F I N; A NNI E YGR I F F I N , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v.
A B N A M R O M O R T G A G E G R O U P I N C , i t s af f i l i ates, hei rs an d assi gn s; M O R R IS & A S S O C IA T E S ; E M ILYKC O U R T E A U , i n di vi du al l y an d i n her c apac i t y as subst i t ut ed t r ust ee on t he deed o f t r ust ; C I TIM O R TG A G E I N C , as S u c c e s s o rin in te r e s t t o A B N , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

U S D C N o . 2 :08 -C V -1

B e fo r e J O L L Ya n d G A R Z A , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d M IL L E R , D is tr ic t J u d g e . * P E R C U R I A M: ** F red erick an d A n n i e G ri ff i n ap p ea lthe d i stri ct co u rt’ s gra n t of de fen d a n ts A B N A M R O M o r tg a g e G r o u p In c . (“A B N ”), M o r r is & A s s o c ia te s , E m ily C ou t reau , an d C i t i M ort gag e, I n c. ’ s (col l ect i vel y, “ D efen da n t s” ) m ot i on t o com pel United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 17, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60164 Document: 00511113537 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2010N o. 09- 60164

The defen dant s argue that th e di strict court’s deni al of the Griffins’motion to reman d 1 t o state c ourtwas not r aised in the Griffins’Notice of Appealan d th at, conse que ntly , th e Griffins are barred from appealing this order. We find that the defen dant s properlyhad notice of app eal of

thisi ssu e fromth e argu me ntsp re se nte d inth e Griff in s’b ri ef

in g . Se ePlu etv . Frazier , 3 5 5F .3 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 3n .1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 4). 2 a r b itr a tio n o f th e G r iffin s ’d is p u te p u r s u a n t t o th e F e d e r a l A r b i t r a t i o n A c t, 9 U .S .C . § 1 , etse q . T h e cl au se ati ssue i n t h e G ri f f i n s’m ort gag e agreem en tst ates i n pert i n en tpart t h at “ [ a] l ldi spu t es, cl ai m s, or controver si es ari si n g f rom or
r el at ed t o t h e l oa n e vi denc ed byt he N ot e, i ncl udi ng s t at ut or y c l ai m s, s hal lbe
r e s o l ve d b y bi ndi ng ar bi t r at i o n, a nd n o tb y c o ur ta c t i o n. ” Al s o i nc l ude d i n t he
ar bi t r at i on c l ause i s a st at em ent t hat “ any c l ai m s c an be f i l ed atany N at i onal A r b itr a tio n F o r u m o ffic e .” A s a p reli m i n a rym a tt e r , t h e G ri ff i n s ar gu e th a t rem ov a lof th i s ca se to fede ra lcou rt w a s i m p rop er b eca u se th e D efen d a n ts did n ot p rese n t ad eq u a te evi den ce t o show t h at C i t i M ort gag e an d A B N consented t o M orri s & A ssoc i ates’
rem oval. H ow ever, t h e di st ri ctcou rtcor rect l y f ou n d that M orri s & A ssoc i ates, 1
a la w f i rm , rep rese n ted C i ti M ortg a ge i n this disp u te, an d the D efen d a n ts presented evi den ce that C i t i M ort gag e a n d A B N h ad m erged. B ot h enti t i es w ere awar e o f

a nd c o ns e nt e d t o M o r r i s & Ass o c i at es’r e pr e s e nt at i o n, i nc l udi ng t he d e c is io n to re m o v e th is ca s e to fe d e r a l c o u r t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id
n ot err in d en yin g th e G ri ff i n s’m oti on to rem a n d to state cou rt. T h e G ri f

f i n s c on t en d t h at t h e di st ri ct court erred i n com pel l i n g arbi t rat i on becau se t h i s dispu t e i s beyon d the scope of t h e arbi t rat i on cl au se and becau se t h e a greem e nti s unc o ns c i o nab l e . N e i t he ra r gum e ntha s m e r i t
. The r e i s no reason to ch a ra cte riz e t h i s di spu t e as a sc h em e t o def rau d the G ri f

f i n s r ather t han a m er e di sput e o vera l oan, w hi c h is w ellw i t hi n t he c l ause ’ s aut hor i t y. Fur t he r m or e , t hi s w as no ta c o nt r ac to f a dhe s i o n, a s t he pl ai n l ang uag e o f t he
arbi t r at i o n c l aus e i ndi c at e s t hatt he G r i f f i ns w e r e und e rno o bl i ga t i o n t o a c c e pt Case: 09-60164 Document: 00511113537 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2010N o. 09- 60164

The last paragra ph above thesignature b l o c ki nt he arbit ration rid er rea ds : “TH IS 2 IS A VOL U N TARYARBITRATION AG REEMENT. IF YOUDECLINE TO SIG N THIS ARBITRATI ONAGREEMEN T, LEND ER WILL NO T REFUSE TO COM PLETE THE LOAN TRANSACTION BE CAUSE O F YOUR DE CI SI ON.” The Griffins cont end that th eywere required to a gre e toth e arbitration clause in orderto receive their loan modific atio n, b ut the Defendants u sed th e arbitration riderapp ende d to the Griffins’ori ginallo an as th e b asis for their motion to c ompel. I n the abse nce of co ntrary evidence, we have no b asis to b eli eve the Griff ins ’ agreem ent tothe arbit ration clau sewasanything but volunt ary and k now ing. 3 th e a rb i tration cl a u se a s a co n d i ti on of th eir m ortg a ge ag ree m en t. Se e E. Fo r d, 2 Inc. v. T aylor , 8 26 So

. 2 d 7 09 , 71 6 (M i s s . 20 02 )

. Addi t i o nal l y, bo t h pa r t i e s t o t he ag r e e m e nt had t he po w e r t o c o m pe l arbi t r at i o n o ve r a di s put e, i n di c at i ng
m ut ual i t y o f

t he a r bi t r at i o n c l aus e . Ac c o r di ngl y, t he G r i f f i ns ha ve pr e s e nt e d no evi den ce i n di cat i n g t h at t h ey w ere r equ i red t o enter i n t o t h e agreem en ti n order to re c e iv e th e irlo a n m o d ific a tio n . The G r i f

f i ns a l s o ar gue t hatt he c l ai m s a ga i ns tM o r r i s & Ass o c i at e s a nd C ou t reau , one of

i t s at t orneys, w e re not arbi t rabl e becau se t h ese part i es w ere
n otparti es t o t h e ag re e m en t
. H ow ever, equ i t able est opp elperm i t s a
n on si gn ator y t o an arbi t rat i on cl au se t o com pelarbi t rat i on againsta si gn ator y

“ w he n t he s i gna t o r y . . . ra i s e s al l e ga t i o ns o f s ubs t ant i al l y i nt e r de pe nde nta nd
c o nc e r t e d m i s c o nduc tb y bo t h t he no ns i gna t o r y ando ne o rm ore of t he sign a tories to th e con tract. ” Gr igs o n v . Cr e a t i v eAr t i s t s Age n cy , L

. L. C. , 210 F. 3d 524, 527 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng MSD ea lerS er v . Co rp . v . Fra n k lin , 1 7 7 F. 3d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) )

. H e r e , t he Gr i f f i n s ’c l a i ms a g a i n s tA BN, C itiM o r tg a g e , M o r r is & A s s o c ia te s , a n d C o u tr e a u a r e s u b s ta n tia lly i n t erdepen den t , as t h ey al lrel ate t o t h e G ri f f i n s’ defaul ti n t erm s of pay m en tof t h e note and deed of t rust, an d su bsequ en tf orecl osure proceedi n gs. Th u s, equi t abl e e st oppelper m i t t ed t he di st r i c tcour tto com pelarbi t r at i on pr oc ee di ngs ag ai ns tM o r r i s & Ass o c i at e s a nd Co ut r e au. H o w e ve r , t he G r i f

f i ns r a i s e t he i s s ue t hatt he N at i o nalAr bi t r at i o n Fo r um , t h e speci f

i ed f orum i n t h e arbi t rat i on cl au se, no l on ger hea rs t h i s t yp e of case. Case: 09-60164 Document: 00511113537 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2010N o. 09- 60164

4 T h i s i s s u e w a s n o tr a i s e d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tb u tc o u l d a f fe c tt h e o u t c o me o f t he c as e . Ac c o r di ngl y, w e VA CA TE t h e di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rc o m pe l l i ng arbi t rat i o n a nd REM AN D t hi s c as e f o rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o de c i de i n t he f i rst i n st an ce w h e th er t h i s new i ssue af fect s i t s deci si on t o f i n d the arbi t rat i on agreem en tenfor ceabl e. Case: 09-60164 Document: 00511113537 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/17/2010