Opinion
No. 08-56871.
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2010.
Filed March 10, 2010.
Stanley Martin Gibson, Litigation Counsel, Jeffer Mangels Butler Marmaro, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Glenn, James M. Donovan Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen W. Greiner, Partner, Willkie Fair Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02416-AHM-E.
Before: RYMER, WAEDLAW and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Dancap Productions, Inc. ("Dancap") appeals the district court's order granting Key Brand Entertainment, Inc.'s ("Key Brand") petition to compel arbitration. The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and we have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not err in concluding that the arbitration provision in the Additional Rights Agreement encompasses Key Brand's request for an interpretation of the parties' agreements. See Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The parties' dispute as to the proper interpretation of the agreements falls squarely within the arbitration provision, which covers of "[a]ny dispute . . . arising out of or relating to" the agreement, "including, but not limited to, the interpretation . . . thereof." Because the arbitration provision expressly covers disputes as to the interpretation of the agreement, the provision's exclusion of "claims for injunctive or equitable relief does not apply. Therefore, the district court acted properly in ordering arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).