Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-11-176-SCD
Submitted: April 1, 2002
Decided: April 4, 2002
ORDER
On this 4th day of April 2002, upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss, it appears that:
(1) Plaintiff and defendant entered into an Authorized Retail Dealer Agreement ("Agreement"). Paragraph 20 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of any disputes between the parties. The arbitration is to be conducted by a three-person panel under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Plaintiff entered into an Owner's Guaranty and Assumption of Dealer's Obligations and agreed to be bound by the Agreement.
Defendant's Motion at Exhibit A.
Id.
Defendant's Motion at Exhibit B.
(2) During the process of terminating the dealership, a dispute arose relating to defendant's alleged liability to plaintiff for commissions owed and the payment for fixtures. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit as a result of that dispute.
(3) Title 10 Del. C. § 5701 of the Delaware Code states:
A written agreement to submit to arbitration any controversy existing at or arising after the effective date of the agreement is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract, without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy . . . .
Del. C. Ann. tit. 10 Del. C. § 5701 (1999).
In determining arbitrability, courts are confined to ascertaining whether the dispute is one that, on its face, falls within the arbitration clause of the contract. Courts may not consider any aspect of the merits of the claim sought to be arbitrated. "Where it is reasonable to construe a contract as requiring arbitration, [c]ourts will do so in view of the public policy encouraging arbitration." The public policy of Delaware favors arbitration.
SBC Interactive, Inc. v. Corporate Media Partners, 714 A.2d 758, 761 (Del.Supr. 1998).
Id.
Pettinaro Constr. Co., 408 A.2d 957, 962 (Del.Ch. 1979); Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blevins, 572 F. Supp. 397, 400-01 (D.Del. 1983).
SBC Interactive, Inc., 714 A.2d at 761.
(4) In the case at bar, plaintiff and defendant entered into a binding contract. The contract provides that disputes are to be resolved by arbitration, thus, plaintiff has elected arbitration. The statute, case law, and public policy favor arbitration. Plaintiff's citation of Graham Oil Co. v. Arco Products Co., 43 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1995), is not persuasive because the arbitration clause in that case was inconsistent with the requirements of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, a statutory scheme not pertinent to this dispute. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
15 U.S.C.A. §§ 2801- 2806 (1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.