NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 13a0313n.06 No. 12-1008 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

DENTAL ASSOCI ATES, P.C., d/ b/a REDWOOD DENTAL

GROUP Plaintiff-Appellee , ON APPEALFROM THE v. UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN AMERI CAN DENTA L

PARTNERS OF DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN MI CHI GAN, L L C and AMERI CAN DENTA L PARTNERS, I

NC. Def endants-A

ppellants.

/
Be fore : CL AY, COOK, a nd ROTH, Circuit J udg es.

*
J ANE R. ROTH, Circuit J udg e. Americ an Dental Partners of Michig an, L L C, (ADPM) and Americ an Dental Partners, I nc., (ADPI ) (collec tively , ADP) appea l the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss and compel arbitra tion. For the f

ollowing r easons, we will affirm the district c ourt’s orde r. I . BA CKGROUND Dental Associates P.C. (Associa tes) is a profe s sional corpor ation owned by a number of dentists who are licensed to prac tice dentist ry in Michig an. Associates employ s approximately twenty dentists in the Detroit metropolitan are a. ADPI provides assets, personne l, and non-clinica l

The Honora

ble J ane R. Roth, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appea ls f or the * Third Circuit, sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 2

s er v i ce s to dentists throug hout the United States. On May 1, 2003, ADPI ’s wholly -owned subsidiary , ADPM, entere d into the following ag ree ments with A ssociates: (1) an Asset Purchase Ag ree ment (APA) throug h which ADPI purcha sed a larg e portion of the assets used in the opera tion of Associates’ dental p ra ct i ce s, and (2) a Service Ag ree ment under which ADPM provided administrative and other non-clinica l service s to Associates. As require d under th e S er v i ce Ag ree ment, Associates also enter ed into Employ ment Ag ree ments with Drs. Bouc hillon, Woehrlen, and Yoffe e, dentists employ ed by Associates. ADPM and ADPI are not parties to the Employ ment Ag ree ments but are r efe rre d to as third-par ty benef iciarie s. The APA and Employ

ment Ag ree ments both contain arbitra tion clause s in their “Remedie s” sections requiring that “all disag ree ments and controve rsies arising with respe ct to this Ag ree ment

. . . be settled by binding arbitra tion.” The Service Ag ree ment, howeve r, does not contain a simil ar arbitra tion clause in its “Remedie s” section; rathe r, the Service Ag ree ment mentions arbitra tion only with respe ct to the neg otiation of a n ew compensa tion arr ang ement should “re g ulatory matters” require chang es to the existi ng compensa tion arra ng ement. The AP A and the Service Ag ree ment both contain the following integ ration clause that incorpora tes the other ag ree ments by ref ere nce: “[t] his document (including its exhibi ts and all other documents ref

err ed to here in, all of which are incorporated here in by ref ere nce) contains the entire
ag ree ment

. . ..” The Employ ment Ag ree ments do not incorporate the other ag ree men t s by ref ere nce. Rather, e ach E mploy ment Ag ree ment expli citly states: “[t] his Ag ree ment contains the entire ag reem en t betwee n the parties and superse des all other ag ree ments and understanding s betwee n the Parties with re spect to the subjec t matter of the A g ree ment.”No. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 3 As sociates broug ht this action ag ainst ADP alleg ing claims of brea ch of fiduciar y duty , brea ch of contra ct, tortious interfe renc e with contra ct and/or prospec tive economic advanta g e, and unjust enric hment. ADP filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitra tion, arg uing that the dispute should be ar bitrated under the arbitra tion clause s of the APA and Employ ment Ag ree ments. The district court denied the motion on Dec ember 9, 2011, finding that t h e p arties’ dispute could be resolved without ref

ere nce to the APA or the Employ ment Ag ree ments and there fore was not subject to arbitration. ADP appe aled.
I I . DI SCUS SI ON 1
We r eview a district c ourt’s denia l of a motion to dismi ss a nd compel arbitra tion de novo . Nestle W aters N. Am., Inc. v . Bollman , 505 F.3d 498, 501–02 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Under the Fe dera l Arbitration Act, arbitra tion clause s in commerc ial contra cts “s h all be valid, irrevoc able, and enfor cea ble, save upo n s u ch grounds as exis t at law or in equity for the

revoc ation of any contra ct.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “[ Q] u es t ions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy reg ard for the fede ral p olicy favor ing arbitra tion.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem

. Hosp. v. Merc ury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)) ; see also Mazera v. Varsity Ford Mgmt. Servs. , 565 F.3d 997, 1001 (6th Cir. 2009) (re cog nizi ng a “strongpolicy pref ere nce in f

avor of arbitra tion”).
Ho weve r, “a court may order arbitra tion of a particula r dispute only wher e the cou rt i s satisfied that the parti es agr ee d to arbitra te that dispute .” Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of
Teamsters , --- U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 2847, 2856 (2010). Specifica lly , a court must find that “a valid

The district c ourt had subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and we 1 have a ppellate jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a).No. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 4
ag ree ment t o arbitra te exis ts betwee n the parties and that the specific dispute falls within the

s u b s tantive scope of that ag ree ment.” W atson W yatt & Co. v. SBC Holdings, Inc. , 513 F.3d 6 4 6 , 649 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A dispute falls outside the
scope of an ag ree ment if the “ac tion could be maintained without ref ere nce to the contra ct or rela tionship at issue.” Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc. , 340 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2003). Where there

are multipl e contra cts betwee n the parties, “this court has adopted a more narr ow test of arbitra bility , examining which agr eeme nt deter mines the scope of the contested obliga tions” and has “re jected the view that a dispute is arbitra ble mere ly beca

use it touches on matters cover ed by the arbitra tion cl au se.” Nestle W

aters N. Am., Inc. v. Bollman , 505 F.3d 498, 504 (6th Cir. 2007) (cita t i o n s an d internal quotation marks omitted).
Her e, the district court corr ectly h el d that the dispute is not arbitra ble. On appea l, ADP
arg ues that the district c ourt err ed in de ny ing its motion to dismiss and compel arbitra tion be cause the claims are arbitra

ble pursuant to the APA and the Employ ment Ag ree ments. We will aff irm the district court’s order bec ause (1) the claims arise under the Service Ag ree ment and thus are not arbitra ble pursuant to the APA or the Employ ment Ag ree ments and (2) the parties did not intend to arbitra te disputes arising under the Service Ag ree ment. A. Claims Arise Under

the Service Ag ree ment The critica l inquiry in deter mining whether a dispute falls under an arbitra tion clause is whether the action can be maintained without ref ere nce to the ag ree ment containing the arbitra tion clause

. Fazio , 340 F.3d a t 395. Where there are mul tiple contra cts betwee n the parties, a dis pute is arbitrable pursuant to the arbitration clause in a related contract if “the arbitration clause is part of the umbrella ag ree ment g overning the parties’ overa ll rela tionship.” Nestle W aters , 505 F.3d atNo. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 5 506; see also Panepuc ci v. Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP , 281 F. App’x 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2008) (“We have held that an arbitra tion clause in a master or ‘umbrella’ ag ree ment that cre ates an
ong oing rela tionship encompa sses a dispute over the terms of a later contra ct that was enter ed into

as part of the rela

tionship, even if the later contra ct itse l f l ac k s an arbitra tion clause .”) (citation omitted). Howeve r, even in case s involving umbrella ag ree ments, the key question is still whether the action can be maintained without r efe renc e to the ag ree ment containing the arbitra tion c lause. See Ne stle W aters , 505 F.3d a t 505 (citing Fazio , 340 F.3d a t 395).
ADP arg ues that the APA is an umbrella ag ree ment g overning the parties’ rela tionship and thus that the dispute is arbitra ble pursuant to the APA. To support this arg ument, ADP asser ts that the APA cre ated the rela tionship betwee n the parti es an d t h at the APA incorporates the Service Ag ree ment and Employ

ment Ag ree ments by ref

ere nce. We ag ree with the district court that the
AP A i s not an umbrella ag ree ment. The APA did not cre ate the rela tionship betwee n the pa rt i es ; rather, the APA only g overns the one-time purcha se and transfe r of assets, and the Service Ag ree ment define s the ong oing business rela tionship betwee n the parties. Additionally , the fac t that the APA incorpora

tes the Service Ag ree ment and Employ ment Ag ree ments by ref

ere nce is not dispositi ve beca

use the Service Ag ree ment also incorporates the APA and Employ ment Ag ree ments by ref ere nce. B ased on this evidenc e, we conclude that the APA is not an umbrella a g ree ment. Moreove r, this dispute can be maintained without ref ere nce to the APA. Associates’ claim of brea ch of fiduciar

y duty arises under the Service Ag ree ment: the Service Ag ree ment cre ated the fiduciar y duty by making ADPM an ag ent and g ranting ADPM power of attorney to act as Associates’ attorney -in-fa ct reg arding Associates’ financ es. Associ at es’ brea ch of contra ct claimNo. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 6 also rela tes solely to the breach of the Service Ag ree ment. Fur thermore , the Service Ag ree ment contains its own section of de finitions and can be interpre ted without refe renc e to the APA. ADP, howeve r, points to three portions of the complaint that it believes require ref ere nce to the AP A. They do not. The first appea rs i n the factual backg round section an d d o es not rela te t o Associates’ gro u n d s for relief

. The other two instances conce rn Associates’ reque st for the court
to overse e the transition proce ss upon the termination of the Service Ag ree ment and its reque st for

a constructive trust and acc ounting. ADP arg ues t h at t h e district court would have to ref er to the
APA in overse eing the tr an s i t i o n p rocess and order ing an acc ounting. Howeve r, what is at issue here is the termination of and an acc ounting under the Service Ag ree ment, not the APA. For these

rea sons, under the Fazio standard, this dispute i s outside the scope of the APA and its arbitra tion clause

. This dispute also can be maintained without r efe renc e to the Employ ment Ag ree ments and thus is not arbitra

ble under the arbitra tion clause s in those ag ree ments. The only menti o n o f t h e Employ ment Ag ree ments in the complaint i s in para g raph 45 of the fac tual background section, which states: “[d] efe ndants

. . . have indicated an intent t h at , re gar d less of whether [Associates] enfor ces the non-compe tes, ADP of Michig an can enfor ce the non-compe tes and there by control the
prac tice of dentistry in violation of law and public policy .” This se ction of the complaint does not rela te to any of Associates’ g rounds for relief ; rathe r, the counts set forth in the complaint are based solely on the Service Ag ree ment. Thus, as the district court corr ectly found, the dispute at issue here can be resolved w ithout refer ence to the Employ ment Ag ree ments. For these reasons, w e conclude that the di spute arises under the Service Ag ree ment and is not arbitrable pursuant to the APA or the Employ ment Ag ree ments.No. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 7

B. Intent of the Parties Additionally , we find that the parties d i d n o t intend to arbitra te disputes conce rning the Service Ag ree ment. “Ar

bitrat i o n i s s t ri ct l y a matter of consent,

. . . and thus is a way to resolve

t hose disputes— but only those disputes —that the parties have ag ree d to submit to arbitra tion.” Granite Rock, 130 S. Ct. at 2857; see also Simon v. Pfizer, Inc. , 398 F.3d 765, 775 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[N]o matter how strong the fede ral policy favor s arbitra tion, arbitra tion is a m at ter of consent betwee n the parties, and one cannot be require d to submit to arbitration a dispute w hich it has not
ag ree d to submit to arbitration.”) (citation and inter nal quotation marks omitted).
Her e, the Service Agr ee ment, unlike the APA and Employ ment Ag ree ments, does not contain a broad arbitra tion clause i n i t s “Remedie s” section; rathe r, the Service Ag ree ment contemplates arbitra

tion only of disput es re gar d i ng the narr ow issue of a new compensa tion

arr ang ement in the event of cer tain re gu l atory chang es. I f the parties intended to arbitra te all disputes arising out of the Service Ag ree ment, they could have easily included t h e same broad arbitra tion provision in that ag ree ment. See Alticor, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. , 411 F.3d 669, 672 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not c overe d by the arbitra tion provision in the parties’ separ ate premium pay ment ag ree ment beca

use if the party “had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitra tion provision, it could easil y , cl ear ly and unequivoca lly have done s o , eit her by including an arbitra tion provision in the insurance policy i t s el f, o r b y adding to the above arbitra tion provision

. . ..”). Although we reje cted a simil ar
arg ument in Nestle W

aters , wher e we found that a dispute arising out of a deed was cover ed under the arbitra tion clause in the parties’ Purchase and Sale Ag ree ment, which require d execution of theNo. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 8 deed and other contra cts, that case is distinguishable beca use a deed does not usually cont ain an arbitra tion cl au s e. 5 05 F.3d at 506–07. As the di strict court rightly held i n this case , “[i] t cannot be said that a Service Ag ree ment is of the ty pe that would not ty

pically contain an arbitra tion clause .” Dental Ass ocs., P.C

. v. Am. Dental Part ners of Mich., L LC , No. 11-c v-11624, 2011 WL 6122779, at *4 (E.D. Mic h. Dec . 9, 2011).
Moreove r, the inclusion of a termination provision requiring final judicial resolution of speci fi c d isputes, including whether ADPM has brea ched its fiduciar y duty , in the Service Ag ree ment further indicates that the parties did not intend to arbitra te all disputes arising out of that
ag ree men t

. L i k ew i se, the express limit ation in the arbitra tion provisions in the APA and the

2 Employ ment Ag ree ments to “d isag ree ments and controve rsies arising with respe ct to this Ag ree men t ” demonstrates that the parties intended these provisions to apply to the ag ree ments in which they appea

r and not the Service Ag ree ment. Ba sed on this evidenc e, we hold that the parties did not intend to arbitra te disputes under the Service Ag ree ment. Thus the dispute is not arbitra ble.
I I I . CONCL USI ON

ADP asser

ts that this provision does n o t i n d icate an intent not to arbitra te disputes under the 2 Service Ag ree ment beca

use a co u rt m ak es a “fina l deter mination” when it aff

irms an arbitra tion awa rd. ADP cites to a simil ar case betwee n ADP and another dentistry prac tice in which the district court held that a judicial confirma tion of an arbitrat o r’ s d et ermination g ave eff ect to a near ly identical termination provision for s u p port. Elias, Elliott , Lampasi, Fehn, Harris & Nguyen, a Dental Practice

, Inc. v

. American D ental Partners of Cal. , No. EDCV 11-1565- J ST(ex), Sl ip Op. at 7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011). The service ag ree ment at issue in that case , howeve r, contained an arbitra tion clause like that in the instant APA and Employ ment Ag ree ments. Thus, the court in Elias held that “the rea ding that g ives eff ect to both the Arbitration Clause and the Termination Provision is that the Termination Provision contemplates a judicial confirma t i o n of an arbitra tor’s deter mination that ADP of California brea ched its fiduciar y duty to the Dental Practice .” Id. Her e, there is no competing arbi tration provision in the Service Ag ree ment. Thus, this termination p ro v i s ion, in the absenc e of such an arbitra tion provision, does constitute further proof that t h e parties c ontemplated judicial re solution of claims under the Ser vice Ag ree ment.No. 12-1008

Dental Associates v. A merican D ental Partners, et al Pag e 9 For

the fore g oing r easons, we will affirm the district c ourt’s orde r.