Opinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, No. CV-87-1393-FR; Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Nos. CV-89-4287-RSWL, CV-87-8585-RSWL; Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding.
D.Or.
AFFIRMED.
Before HUG and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL, District Judge.
The Honorable Earl H. Carroll, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
The parties had a contract for real estate services that provided for arbitration of disputes. The arbitration clause required arbitration "[i]n the event of any dispute arising with respect to any material point in this Agreement." First San Francisco Corporation sought arbitration for its brokerage commission and succeeded in getting a fee award. Hoff disputed First San Francisco's entitlement to the commission and raised a number of defenses including fraud, failure to provide services, and that the contract could not be enforced because the exclusive listing did not have a termination date and because the real estate firm and the salesman were not properly licensed.
We conclude that these defenses, along with the determination of whether Oregon or California law was to be applied, were appropriate matters to be determined by the arbitrator under the provisions of the arbitration clause. This determination is in accord with the longstanding policy of construing arbitration clauses liberally to resolve any doubts in favor of arbitrability. See, e.g., AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986); Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614, 625 (1985); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983); Management & Technical Consultants v. Parsons-Jurden Int'l Corp., 820 F.2d 1531, 1534 (9th Cir.1987); French v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 784 F.2d 902, 908 (9th Cir.1986).
The district court's awards of attorneys' fees and costs are AFFIRMED. The parties' requests for attorneys' fees on appeal are DENIED.
AFFIRMED.