Harbor Constr. Co., Inc. v. T.H.R. Enter., Inc., 311 F.Supp.3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2018).

Harbor Const. Co., Inc. v. T.H.R. Enters., Inc., 311 F.Supp.3d 797, 802 (E.D. Va. 2018).

Lack of mutuality does not render an agreement to arbitrate unenforceable so long as the agreement is supported by consideration. See King v. Indus. Bank of Wash., 474 A.2d 151, 156 (D.C. 1984) ("Mutuality of obligation is merely another name for the requirement of consideration in bilateral contracts."); United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., Inc., 311 F. Supp. 3d 797, 803 (E.D. Va. 2018) ("[C]onsideration is essential; mutuality of obligation is not, unless the want of mutuality would leave one party without a valid or available consideration for his promise.") (quoting Turner & Happersett v. Hall & Connor, 128 Va. 247, 104 S.E. 861, 863 (1920) ). In this case, it is indisputable that the arbitration clause was supported by consideration. Mobile Now responds that there was no mutuality because Mobile Now was "forbidden from obtaining relief [for some claims during certain times] in any forum."

In failing to recognize this important distinction, DGI "ignores a long history of Miller Act cases which resolve the tension between the Miller Act and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by staying the Miller Act claim pending arbitration of the underlying dispute." U.S. ex rel. MPA Const., Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 349 F. Supp. 2d 934, 941 (D. Md. 2004) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Tanner v. Daco Constr., Inc., 38 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1304-05 (N.D. Okla. 1999)); see also U.S. ex rel. Milestone Tarant, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., 672 F. Supp. 2d 92, 104 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing cases); U.S. ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co., Inc. v. T.H.R. Enterprises, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-146, 2018 WL 1999538, at *7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2018). DGI also cites Walton Tech., Inc. v. Weststar Engineering, Inc., 290 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2002) to support its position regarding denial of a requested stay.