Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 933 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1991)

Nos. 88-4022, 88-5995, 88-6181, 90-55223 and 90-55599.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before HUG and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL,*  District Judge.


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.



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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.