Opinion ID: 1702301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is the parties' dispute within the scope of the arbitration agreement?

Text: ¶ 26. The Stock Purchase Agreement (Tritel) entered into between Sullivan and Tritel does not contain the Integrated Transaction provision but the Mutual Release and Termination Agreement entered into between Sullivan, Tritel and other undersigned parties does contain said provision. ¶ 27. Defendants cite Russell v. Performance Toyota, Inc., 826 So.2d 719 (Miss.2002), in support of their argument that the arbitration provision was an integral part of and integrated into the other Transaction Documents. In Russell, there were two contracts  a Retail Buyer's Order and the Purchaser's Agreement Concerning Trade In. The Retail Buyer's Order contained an arbitration clause. Russell argued that because the `Purchaser's Agreement Concerning Trade In' does not contain an arbitration clause, any claims that involve the trade-in agreement are not subject to arbitration. Id. at 723. The Retail Buyer's Order specifically stated: The attached Purchaser's Agreement Concerning Trade In hereby is incorporated into this contract. Id. This Court affirmed the trial court's referral of the case to arbitration. ¶ 28. Defendants also cite Personal Security & Safety Systems, Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 297 F.3d 388 (5th Cir.2002) and Neal v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 918 F.2d 34 (5th Cir.1990) in support of their argument. In Personal Security & Safety Systems, Inc., PSSI and Motorola executed three agreements in connection with their investment: a Stock Purchase Agreement, a Shareholders Agreement and a Product Development and License Agreement. The Product Development and License Agreement contained a broad arbitration clause. The court held that the licensing agreement's arbitration provision governs claims arising out of the stock purchase agreement because the agreements were executed together as part of the same overall transaction and therefore are properly construed together. Personal Security & Safety Systems, Inc. 297 F.3d at 390. ¶ 29. In Neal, Hardee's and Neal entered into a Purchase Agreement which expressly provided that Neal would contemporaneously enter into License Agreements with Hardee's. Neal, 918 F.2d at 36. The License Agreements contained a broad arbitration clause. Id. Neal filed a complaint against Hardee's for claims arising under the Purchase Agreement, which did not contain an arbitration clause. Id. The court, however, held that [a]lthough the parties used multiple agreements to delineate their relationship, each agreement was dependant upon the entire transaction.... The individual agreements were integral and interrelated parts of the one deal. Id. ¶ 30. Here, both the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement which contained the arbitration provision, and the Stock Purchase Agreement (Tritel), were signed by Sullivan and Tritel, Inc.; and the Mutual Release and Termination Agreement was signed by Sullivan, Tritel and other parties, which included Mounger and Martin among other individuals and entities. Therefore, Sullivan and Tritel were parties to all three documents. ¶ 31. The Integrated Transaction provision states in part, The provisions of this Agreement are an integral part of, and are necessary consideration for, the Transaction Documents and the settlement of existing disputes between and among the parties. (emphasis added). As was the case in Neal, there is no question in the case sub judice that all the individual documents were integral and interrelated parts of a single, global settlement transaction. ¶ 32. Sullivan relies on expressio unius est exclusio alterius, a rule of contract interpretation which is defined as expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Miss. Milk Comm'n v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 235 So.2d 684, 689 (Miss.1970). Sullivan argues that when the parties expressly included an arbitration provision in the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, they clearly excluded arbitration of claims arising in connection with other agreements. However, in Neal, the court stated: Under general principles of contract law, separate agreements executed contemporaneously by the same parties, for the same purposes, and as part of the same transaction, are to be construed together. Neal, 918 F.2d at 37 (emphasis added). In other words, when separate documents are executed at the same time, by the same parties, as part of the same transaction, they may be construed as one instrument. ¶ 33. Furthermore, it is clear that Sullivan and Tritel intended that any and all disputes, controversies and claims arising in connection with the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement would be arbitrated, and the law is clear that when documents are executed contemporaneously by the same parties, for the same purposes, and as part of the same transaction they are to be construed together. ¶ 34. The case sub judice is an action filed by Sullivan against Mounger, Martin and Tritel. The Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, which contained the arbitration provision, was entered into between Sullivan and Tritel and the Mutual Release and Termination Agreement was entered into between Sullivan, Tritel and other undersigned parties, which included Mounger and Martin. Sullivan signed the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement and agreed to the arbitration provision contained therein. ¶ 35. Sullivan's claims arising under the Stock Purchase Agreement and the Mutual Release and Termination Agreement fall within the arbitration provision contained in the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, and the claims were arbitrable.