Court Opinion

ID: 9952442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:01:26.68202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:49.246982
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-4068      Document: 010111018539      Date Filed: 03/19/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         March 19, 2024
                           _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC., a
  Delaware corporation; PHARMANEX,
  LLC, a Delaware limited liability
  company,

           Petitioners - Appellants,

  v.                                                          No. 22-4068
                                                     (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-00709-RJS)
  EARNEST L. RAAB, D.C., d/b/a                                  (D. Utah)
  Success to Significance LLC, a
  Washington LLC; MICHAEL ULRICK;
  LARRY C. WIEBER and ROSE
  WIEBER, d/b/a Test for Nutrition of
  Washington, LLC, a Washington LLC;
  MAX ROBBINS; DEBRA ROBBINS;
  TONI RAGSDALE, d/b/a Ragsdale and
  Company LLC, an Oklahoma
  LLC; WAYNE MATECKI, LAC and
  AMY L. MATECKI, M.D., d/b/a Dr.
  Amy's Integrative Medicine, Inc., a
  California corporation,

           Respondents - Appellees.

                           _________________________________

                               ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                           _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-4068      Document: 010111018539          Date Filed: 03/19/2024     Page: 2

        Appellants Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. and Pharmanex, LLC petitioned the United

 States District Court for the District of Utah to enjoin Appellees Earnest Raab, et al, from

 pursuing litigation against them in Washington state court and ordering them to submit

 their dispute to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Appellants relied on

 identical arbitration clauses in contracts (the Contracts) it had entered into with

 Appellees. In June 2022 the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration and

 dismissed the petition, holding that it was precluded by the ruling by the Superior Court

 of the State of Washington that “the underlying Complaint is not a ‘Dispute’ within the

 meaning of the [arbitration provision in the] Contract[s].” Nu Skin Enter., Inc. v. Raab,

 No. 2:21-cv-00709-RJS-CMR, 2022 WL 2118223 at *11 (D. Utah, June 13, 2022); see

 Raab v. Nu Skin Enter., Inc., No. 21-2-03272-32, 2022 WL 21816495 (Wash. Super.

 Mar. 8, 2022).

        Appellants appealed that decision to this court. Shortly after that notice of appeal

 was filed, the Washington Court of Appeals granted Appellants’ motion to consider an

 interlocutory appeal from the decision of the state Superior Court, and the parties to this

 appeal agreed to stay this appeal pending a decision by the Washington Court of Appeals.

 In October 2023 the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Superior

 Court, holding that the claims in the litigation were disputes subject to the arbitration

 agreement and remanding to the Superior Court for further proceedings, including

 determination of whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable. See Raab v. Nu Skin

 Enter., 536 P.3d 695 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

                                            Page 2
Appellate Case: 22-4068      Document: 010111018539          Date Filed: 03/19/2024       Page: 3

        As stated by all parties in their briefs to this court, the Superior Court decision no

 longer has preclusive effect. Because preclusion was the basis of the district court’s

 decision in this case, we must therefore reverse that decision. We express no view on any

 other issue in this case, including the possible preclusive effect of any other proceedings

 or decisions in the Washington courts.

        Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we REVERSE and REMAND

 for further proceedings.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                Harris L Hartz
                                                Circuit Judge

                                            Page 3