Turi v. Main Street Adoption Services, LLP
633 F.3d 496
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Main Street Adoption Services, LLP, a non-Michigan entity, and certain officers appeal district-court rulings on jurisdiction, venue, and arbitration for Michigan plaintiffs’ claims.
- Twelve plaintiffs signed adoption agreements with Main Street to adopt a child from Guatemala; ten resided outside Michigan at filing.
- Michigan plaintiffs communicated with Main Street; non-Michigan plaintiffs had no Michigan contacts.
- Plaintiffs allege fraud, misrepresentation, RICO, and related state-law claims arising from adoptions that never occurred.
- District court held: (a) personal jurisdiction over Main Street for Michigan plaintiffs, (b) venue proper in Eastern District of Michigan, (c) arbitration clause did not foreclose litigation of the case; appellate review follows.
- Court ultimately dismisses as premature the jurisdictional challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue; reverses insofar as preserving district court jurisdiction over fee-related claims and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal proper to review arbitration-denial and related orders? | Main Street—arbitration denial is appealable under FAA; jurisdiction exists. | Interlocutory issues not automatically appealable; need ARB determination. | Yes for arbitration-denial; no for other interlocutory issues without §1292(b) certification. |
| Are the Michigan and non-Michigan plaintiffs' claims properly before the court? | Michigan claims are connected; non-Michigan claims should be heard too. | Non-Michigan claims lack personal jurisdiction; cannot be heard. | Non-Michigan claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; pendent/intervention issues not properly before court. |
| Does arbitration clause cover non-fee claims like RICO and torts? | Arbitration clause covers all disputes arising from fees; other claims may be within scope. | Clause narrowly covers disputes regarding fees; non-fee claims fall outside. | Non-fee claims are outside the arbitration clause; fee claims are within; arbitrability determined accordingly. |
| Who decides the scope/arbitrability—arbitrator or court? | AAA rules delegate arbitrability to arbitrator. | Delegation limited by narrow clause; arbitrator cannot decide scope of non-fee claims. | Arbitrator should decide only if claims fall within scope; here, non-fee claims not within scope; court to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simon v. Pfizer Inc., 398 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. 2005) (arbitrability and scope considerations under AAA rules; not all issues are arbitrable)
- Bratt Enters., Inc. v. Noble Int'l Ltd., 338 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2003) (narrow arbitration provisions may limit arbitrability of related disputes)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (question of who decides arbitrability; delegation standards)
- Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2004) (pendent appellate jurisdiction limits; need for essential intertwining)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2001) (test for pendent appellate jurisdiction when intertwined with arbitrability)
- Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989) (collateral-order aspects of jurisdiction explained)
- PaineWebber Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Private Bank, 260 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2001) (examples of where arbitration scope issues intersect with jurisdiction)