Court Opinion

ID: 9491697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:21:07.659769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:53.788978
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s conclusion that the arbitration clause at issue in this ease is not ambiguous. It seems quite plain to me that, on its face, it can bear the meaning that MRI ascribes to it. In fact, I would say that the meaning that MRI argues for is rather more reasonable than the one that Mr. Keymer urges us to adopt. That being the case, I simply cannot say “‘with positive assurance,’” or, indeed, with any assurance whatever, that the relevant clause “ ‘is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ ” AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). At the least, the district court erred, in my view, in not considering MRI’s proffered extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the clause. Even without the proffered extrinsic evidence, the presumption of arbitrability ought to carry the day for MRI in this case.
I therefore respectfully dissent from the court’s order in this case, and would reverse the district court’s order and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.