Opinion ID: 622202
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FAA Governs Review of the Arbitration Agreement.

Text: We first consider whether the Severance Agreement called for arbitration under the FAA or under California law. Biller contends, in essence, that the district court erred by considering the Final Award under the limited review authorized by the FAA rather than under the more expansive review authorized by California Arbitration Act (CAA) in cases where the parties contract for such expansive judicial review. Under California contract law, `if the language [of a contract] is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity' the language must govern the contract's interpretation. Comedy Club, 553 F.3d at 1285 (alteration in original) (quoting Cal. Civ.Code § 1638). Moreover, when a contract is written, `the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible.' Id. (quoting Cal. Civ.Code § 1639). Accordingly, we will look first to the plain language of the Severance Agreement to determine whether the FAA or the CAA governs. The Dispute Resolution clause [4] of the Severance Agreement expressly states: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of California; provided, however, that the arbitration agreement [in the Dispute Resolution clause] of this Agreement will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act unless it is found by a decision maker of competent jurisdiction not to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, in which case it will be governed by California law. (emphasis added). Consistent with state law regarding contract interpretation, the plain language of the Severance Agreement is unambiguous and shows the parties' intent that while contract terms are generally to be governed by California law, any arbitration more specifically is to be conducted under the FAA unless a decision maker of competent jurisdiction finds that it should be governed by the CAA. Biller neither alleges nor shows that any decision maker determined that the arbitration agreement should not be governed by the FAA. Absent such a determination, we conclude that the plain language of the Severance Agreement requires that the FAA governs the arbitration proceedings here. Alternatively, the district court noted that during the proceedings below, [Biller] took the position that the FAA supplied the relevant framework for confirming or vacating the Arbitration Award. In fact, [Biller] sought affirmative relief under the FAA[, and a]ll Parties agreed that the FAA was controlling before [the district court]. Stated another way, in opposing the confirmation of the Arbitration Award before the district court, Biller did not contend that the CAA governed and the FAA did not. To the extent that Biller now raises this argument, with respect to the confirmation of the Final Award, for the first time before us, we deem it waived. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010) (Th[is] argument [is] raised for the first time on appeal, and because [it was] never argued before the district court, we deem [it] waived.).