Levin v. Alms and Associates, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494

From 2004 to 2007, Appellants provided financial advisory services to Appellee under CFO Advisory Agreements.
The 2007 CFO Agreement contained a broad arbitration clause and an integration clause stating the agreement embodies all terms between the parties.
Appellee filed suit in 2009 asserting negligence, negligent misrepresentation, IAA violations, and breach of contract.
Appellants moved to compel arbitration, arguing the 2007 arbitration clause applied to all disputes, including pre-2007 claims.
The district court split the claims, compelling arbitration for post-2007 claims but not pre-2007 claims, and the court allowed limited discovery.
This appeal challenges both (i) whether filing the arbitrability appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the underlying claims and (ii) whether the 2007 arbitration clause retroactively covers pre-2007 accrued claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does filing the arbitrability appeal divest the district court of jurisdiction over underlying claims?	Levin argues yes; appeal divests.	Alms argues no; district court keeps jurisdiction.	Yes; automatic divestiture, with a frivolousness safeguard.
Are pre-2007 accrued claims subject to the 2007 arbitration clause?	Arbitration clause retroactively applies to all disputes.	Arbitration clause limited to post-2007 disputes.	Yes; broad "any dispute" language retroactively applies to pre-2007 claims; remand for arbitration.

Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, 128 F.3d 504 (7th Cir.1997) (divestiture rule for § 16(a)(1)(A) appeals; mirrors Griggs)
Blinco v. Greentree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.2004) (frivolousness safeguard to divestiture)
Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F.3d 207 (3d Cir.2007) (frivolousness safeguard and automatic divestiture)
McCauley v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 413 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir.2005) (frivolousness safeguard; divestiture approach)
Zink v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 13 F.3d 330 (10th Cir.1993) (retroactive scope of broad arbitration clauses)
Cara's Notions v. Hallmark Cards, 140 F.3d 566 (4th Cir.1998) (retroactive arbitration under broad clause)
Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006) (broad, retroactive interpretation of arbitration clauses)
Hendrick v. Brown & Root, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 527 (E.D. Va.1999) (distinguishable project-by-project arbitration cases)
AT&T Techs. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (strong presumption in favor of arbitration)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal policy favoring arbitration)