Opinion ID: 747974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Principal/Agent or Third Party Beneficiary Theory

Text: 9 Gemplus, as a principal of, an agent for, or a third party beneficiary of the Agency Agreement, may have a right to compel arbitration, if (1) the parties to the Agency Agreement intended it to have a right to compel arbitration, and (2) the claims in dispute are within the scope of arbitrability. See Britton I, 916 F.2d at 1413-14. 10 The district court found that Gemplus was a third party beneficiary of the Agency Agreement because Gemplus USA entered into the Agency Agreement at least in part for the benefit of its parent company, Gemplus. The district court also found that Gemplus acted as principal and agent, because it participated in negotiating the Agency Agreement with Humetrix. The record supports the district court's findings. 11 The district court, however, did not decide whether Humetrix and Gemplus U.S.A., as the parties to the Agency Agreement, intended the arbitration provision to benefit Gemplus. Cf. Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 4 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.1993) (Britton II ); see also AT & T Corp. v. Vision One Sec. Sys., 914 F.Supp. 392, 395 (S.D.Cal.1995). We need not reach this issue because Gemplus has failed to meet the final and determinative inquiry necessary to establish standing to enforce the arbitration provision: Whether Humetrix's claims against Gemplus fall within the scope of the arbitration provision contained in the Agency Agreement. 12 Gemplus must establish that Humetrix's claims in the present case arise in connection with the interpretation or the implementation of the Agency Agreement in order to establish its right to compel arbitration. See Britton II, 4 F.3d at 747. 13 The arbitration provision of the Agency Agreement does not encompass disputes arising in connection with the alleged Sales and Partnership Agreements. Cf. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 473 U.S. at 622 n. 9. The Agency Agreement's arbitration provision limits arbitrable disputes to [a]ll disputes which may arise in connection with the interpretation or the implementation of this Agreement.... 14 Contrary to Gemplus's assertion, the alleged Sales and Partnership agreements were negotiated and entered into separately from the discrete Agency Agreement. The agreements differed substantially in that the Agency Agreement was a two-year marketing contract between Humetrix and Gemplus USA while the Sales and Partnership agreements were five-year sales, distribution, and promotion contracts between Humetrix and Gemplus. 15 The Sales and Partnership Agreements constituted discrete agreements that created distinct obligations for different parties. Thus, the Sales and Partnership Agreements and Agency Agreements are not interrelated agreements. Rather, they are separate and discrete agreements, each subject to individual interpretation. See, e.g., International Ambassador Programs v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337, 339-340 (9th Cir.1995) (finding that subsequent agreement between parties was discrete and not governed by prior agreement where agreements concerned two separate types of tours and completely different groups of tourists and holding that claims arising out of discrete agreement were therefore not within scope of arbitration clause of prior agreement) 16 Moreover, Humetrix seeks to impose liability under the Sales and Partnership Agreements, not the Agency Agreement. Thus, the factual allegations underlying the claims in the present action arise outside the scope of the Agency Agreement. In sum, Gemplus may not compel Humetrix to arbitrate its claims because disputes arising out of the Sales and Partnership Agreements are not within the scope of the arbitration provision in the Agency Agreement.