Mariposa Express, Inc. v. United Shipping Solutions, LLC, 295 P.3d 1173

Franchisees and USS entities operated a shipping/franchise system using DHL services; DHL halted services, prompting breaches and terminations.
Settlement followed for the Mariposa franchisees: three payment types, CAMS data access, and arbitration for freight disputes.
Settlement also imposed indemnification for DHL-related amounts and royalties/fees tied to nonpayment.
DHL counterclaims established USS liability for unpaid DHL shipments; subsequent settlements offset these amounts.
Settlement language incorporated a mandatory arbitration scheme for disputes, with expedited arbitration as the method of resolution.
After negotiations, the district court ruled arbitration governed remaining disputes and dismissed the Mariposa complaint, prompting appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does arbitration apply to the remaining indemnification and freight disputes?	Mariposa argues arbitration not intended for all disputes.	USS contends all disputes fall under arbitration per the agreement.	Arbitration applies to the remaining indemnification and freight disputes.
Was dismissal proper when arbitration was compelled?	Dismissal was inappropriate; stay required.	Arbitration mandate justifies dismissal of the suit.	Court erred by dismissing; reversal warranted and action should be stayed.
Is Utah policy favoring arbitration controlling?	Policy does not override contract terms.	Utah policy favors arbitration.	Policy favors arbitration; contract interpreted to require arbitration.

Parkwest Assocs., 40 P.3d 599 (Utah 2002) (interpret contracts in favor of arbitration; encourage extrajudicial resolution of disputes)
Central Fla. Invs., Inc. v. Parkwest Assocs., 40 P.3d 599 (Utah 2002) (harmonize agreement provisions; interpret for arbitration)
Peterson & Simpson v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 217 P.3d 716 (Utah 2009) (interpret arbitration clause when plain language ambiguous)