In reaching its decision, the district court found that Nevada courts encourage arbitration and liberally construe arbitration clauses in favor of granting arbitration. See Phillips v. Parker, 106 Nev. 415, 417, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (1990). The district court also found that the relevant arbitration clause was quite expansive.
4 Am. Jur. 2d Alternative Dispute Resolution § 100 (2018); see also Phillips v. Parker, 106 Nev. 415, 417, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (1990). Here, the parties agree that the MSA includes a valid and enforceable arbitration provision, so we address the narrow issue of whether this particular dispute fits within the provision's scope.
38.206 to 38.248] clearly favors arbitration." Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. McCrea, 120 Nev. 248, 89 P.3d 36, 39 (2004) (citing Phillips v. Parker, 106 Nev. 415, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (1990)). Nevada previously has recognized a strong policy in favor of arbitration, stating that "[c]ourts are not to deprive the parties of the benefits of arbitration they have bargained for * * *."
So I grant the governing-board members' motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract and breach-of-the-implied-covenant claims against them with leave to amend. Ellison v. Cal. State Auto. Ass'n, 797 P.2d 975, 977 (Nev. 1990) (citing Phillips v. Parker, 794 P.2d 716 (1990)). See ECF Nos. 39 at 16; 40-1 at 13.
Ellison v. Cal. State Auto. Ass'n, 797 P.2d 975, 977 (Nev. 1990) (citing Phillips v. Parker, 794 P.2d 716 (1990)). Ellison, 797 P.2d at 977.
[A]rbitration clauses are to be construed liberally in favor of arbitration.'" Id. (quoting Phillips v. Parker, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (Nev. 1990)). In judging the scope of an arbitration agreement, Nevada courts "'resolve all doubts concerning the arbitrability of the subject matter of a dispute in favor of arbitration.'"
Here, Plaintiff merely contends that he should not have to submit to arbitration because he exercised his rights under the Purchase Agreement to rescind it, and, therefore, the arbitration provision in no longer in effect. However, in order to assert this right and ability to rescind the Purchase Agreement, Campbell relies on the Purchase Agreement itself, not some underlying fraud or other act that would void the Purchase Agreement. See NRS 38.219; see also Phillips v. Parker, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (Nev. 1990) (a party "may not rely on the agreement [for one purpose] and simultaneously disavow the applicability of the arbitration clause.") Thus, it is for an arbitrator to determine if the Purchase Agreement was properly rescinded since the dispute as to whether Campbell could rescind the Purchase Agreement arises from the Purchase Agreement itself. NRS 38.219 ("An arbitrator shall decide . . . whether a contract containing a valid agreement [to arbitrate] is enforceable.") Simply stated, Campbell cannot avoid arbitration by simply asserting that he has rescinded the Purchase Agreement or all arbitration agreements would be subject to this tactic.
Nevada has adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000, which is consistent with this state's long-standing public policy in favor of "efficient and expeditious enforcement of agreements to arbitrate." Tallman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 713, 718, 359 P.3d 113, 117 (2015); see Phillips v. Parker, 106 Nev. 415, 417, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (1990). Arbitration has numerous benefits that lead parties to choose it over litigation.
Where there is an agreement to arbitrate, disputes will be presumed arbitrable. Phillips v. Parker, 106 Nev. 415, 417, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (1990). Additionally, "Nevada courts resolve all doubts concerning the arbitrability of the subject matter of a dispute in favor of arbitration."
This court reviews issues of contract interpretation de novo. See Phillips v. Parker, 106 Nev. 415, 417, 794 P.2d 716, 718 (1990). We have not considered whether an arbitration provision may survive the expiration of the contract in which it is contained.