McEnery v. McEnery et al, No. 4:2021cv09614 - Document 56 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 21 MOTION TO DISMISS AND STAYING CASE ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Status Report due by 12/15/2022. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/17/2022. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2022)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McEnery v. McEnery et al Doc. 56 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN P. MCENERY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 TOM MCENERY, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND STAYING CASE Re: Dkt. No. 21 Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-09614-HSG 12 13 Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Tom McEnery, 14 Martin Menne, and MCM Diversified, Inc. Dkt. No. 21. The Court finds this matter appropriate 15 for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 17 motion. 18 19 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff John McEnery filed this action in December 2021, asserting a single cause of 20 action for intentional interference with prospective economic relations. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) 21 at ¶¶ 18–26. The facts are heavily disputed, although the parties appear to agree that Plaintiff and 22 Defendants have equal ownership over the San Pedro Square Market in San Jose (the “Market”). 23 See id. at ¶ 3; see also Dkt. No. 21 at 3–4. They own and run the Market through two entities, 24 Urban Markets, LLC (“UM”) and Urban Markets Entertainment, LLC (“UME”) (collectively, “the 25 LLCs”). Id. 26 Plaintiff alleges that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Market was no longer profitable. 27 See id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff therefore began to consider selling some or all of his interests in UM and 28 UME. See id. at ¶¶ 5–6. He spoke with his cousin, Oliver Herning, about a potential sale. Id. Dockets.Justia.com 1 But Plaintiff alleges that after learning of the negotiations, Defendants dissuaded Mr. Herning 2 from buying Plaintiff’s interests in UM and UME. See id. at ¶¶ 6–10. According to Plaintiff, 3 Defendant Tom McEnery told Mr. Herning that his negotiations with Plaintiff “were premised on 4 an oversized valuation of the LLCs.” Id. at ¶ 9. Defendant Tom McEnery also “bashed” and 5 “disparaged” Plaintiff’s morals and character in order to deter Mr. Herning from his negotiations 6 with Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Tom McEnery offered Mr. Herning “an 7 alternative investment opportunity in one of Tom’s other projects.” Id. And as a result, Plaintiff 8 alleges, Mr. Herning “ended up walking away from negotiations,” which deprived Plaintiff “of a 9 viable business partner . . . .” Id. at ¶ 10. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 II. DISCUSSION Defendants argue that this case is not properly before the Court because the operating 12 agreements for the two LLCs contain arbitration provisions. See Dkt. No. 21; Dkt. No. 21-2, Ex. 13 A; Dkt. No. 21-3, Ex. B. They urge the Court to dismiss the case entirely or stay the action 14 pending arbitration. See Dkt. No. 21 at 7–15. Defendants also argue that the Court should strike 15 sections of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See id. at 15–16. 16 A. 17 Defendants style their motion as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Motion to Compel Arbitration 18 Procedure 12(b)(1), (3), and (6). See generally Dkt. No. 21. As an initial matter, the parties 19 appear to dispute whether a motion to dismiss is the appropriate procedural mechanism to raise the 20 existence and enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Compare Dkt. No. 22 at 9–14, with Dkt. 21 No. 28 at 2–7. Plaintiff urges that arbitration agreements do not divest federal courts of 22 jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or render federal court an improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). 23 See Dkt. No. 22 at 10–11. Plaintiff also suggests that because he did not explicitly reference the 24 arbitration agreement in the complaint, the Court cannot consider the arbitration agreement under 25 Rule 12(b)(6). See id. at 11–12. The Court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to elevate form over 26 substance in considering Defendants’ motion. 27 28 Regardless of the name of the motion, Defendants have made clear that they believe the parties have entered into valid arbitration agreements; the parties are already arbitrating 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 overlapping claims; and the single cause of action in this case for intentional interference falls 2 within the scope of the arbitration agreements. See Dkt. No. 21 at 3, 7–8; Dkt. No. 28 at 3–4, & 3 n.1. Any party bound to an arbitration agreement that falls within the scope of the Federal 4 Arbitration Act, Title 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et. seq., may bring a motion to compel arbitration and stay the 5 proceeding pending resolution of the arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 3–4. The name of the motion is 6 not dispositive, and the Court accordingly construes Defendants’ motion as one to compel 7 arbitration. See, e.g., Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming 8 motion to compel arbitration under Rule 12(b)(3)); Epic Advert. v. Asis Internet Servs., No. 11- 9 1705 SC, 2011 WL 6182180, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011) (construing motion to dismiss for 10 lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) as motion to compel arbitration) (collecting 11 cases); Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Connex-ATC, No. C-06-3757 MMC, 2006 WL 2975591, at *2 12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2006) (same). 13 When a party moves to compel arbitration, the court must determine (1) “whether a valid 14 arbitration agreement exists” and (2) “whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” 15 Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). The 16 agreement may also delegate gateway issues to an arbitrator, in which case the court’s role is 17 limited to determining whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to 18 arbitrate arbitrability. See Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015). In either 19 instance, “before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid 20 arbitration agreement exists.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 21 530 (2019) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 2). 22 i. Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate 23 Here, Plaintiff acknowledges the existence of the arbitration agreements. See Dkt. No. 22 24 at 8 (“[T]he parties’ UM and UME operating agreements do contain arbitration provisions.”); see 25 also Compl. at ¶¶ 7, 9 (citing the language of the operating agreements and challenging 26 Defendants’ proffered interpretations). Rather than challenge their validity, he acknowledges that 27 the parties are currently arbitrating claims related to the LLCs pursuant to these agreements, 28 including Plaintiff’s own claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and 3 1 fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. See Dkt. No. 22 at 18 (“In the arbitration, 2 plaintiff sought to vindicate rights arising out of the UM and UME operating agreements.”); see 3 also Dkt. No. 21-5, Ex. D. Much like this case, Plaintiff asserts in the arbitration that Defendants 4 interfered with Plaintiff’s discussions with a third party to buy his interests in the LLCs. See Dkt. 5 No. 21-5, Ex. D at ¶¶ 1–5, 9; see also id. at Counter-Claims ¶¶ 16–32. Plaintiff nevertheless 6 argues that the arbitration agreements do not cover his intentional interference claim in this case. 7 See Dkt. No. 22 at 14–18. He argues that this claim “does not arise from the UM and UME 8 operating agreements,” or require their interpretation. Id. In short, Plaintiff challenges the scope 9 of the arbitration agreements. 10 Under the arbitration agreements: United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, or to resolve disputes with respect to this Agreement as between the Company and a Member, or between or among the Members, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association [(“AAA”)]. Arbitration shall be the exclusive dispute resolution process in the State of California . . . . 12 13 14 15 16 See, e.g., Dkt. No. 21-2, Ex. A at 21; see also Dkt. No. 21-3, Ex. B at 22 (same). Plaintiff asserts that his intentional interference claim is not a “dispute[] with respect to” 17 the UM and UME operating agreements, and therefore is not encompassed by the arbitration 18 agreements. See Dkt. No. 22 at 16. Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s claim of intentional 19 interference depends on the nature of his right to sell his interests in the LLCs. See Dkt. No. 28 at 20 4. And his rights—and any limitations—are dictated by the operating agreements. Id. 21 Defendants point out that Plaintiff’s own complaint cites the language of the operating agreements 22 in support of his claim. See Compl. at ¶ 7 (“Under the UM and UME operating agreements, if 23 [Plaintiff] found a bona fide purchaser who was ready, willing and able to consummate a purchase 24 of all of [Plaintiff’s] interest in the LLCs, [Defendants] might have a right of first refusal . . . . If 25 [Plaintiff] were only to sell a portion . . . no such rights would be triggered.”) (emphasis omitted). 26 27 28 ii. Delegation of Arbitrability Before the Court may consider the scope of the arbitration agreements, however, the Court must determine whether it has authority to do so. 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Parties to an arbitration agreement “can agree to arbitrate ‘gateway’ questions of 2 ‘arbitrability,’ such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement 3 covers a particular controversy.” Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68–69 (2010). 4 “[W]hether the court or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is ‘an issue for judicial determination 5 unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.’” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. 6 A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 7 U.S. 79, 83 (2002)). Therefore, courts “apply a more rigorous standard” to gateway questions of 8 arbitrability. See Momot v. Mastro, 652 F.3d 982, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2011). “[C]lear and 9 unmistakable ‘evidence’ of agreement to arbitrate arbitrability might include . . . a course of 10 conduct demonstrating assent . . . or . . . an express agreement to do so.” Id. at 988. The Supreme 11 Court has clarified: 12 13 14 15 When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue. That is true even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless. 16 17 Henry Schein, 139 S. Ct. at 529. 18 As noted above, the arbitration agreements at issue in this case state that “action[s] 19 to . . . interpret this Agreement, or to resolve disputes with respect to this Agreement . . . shall be 20 settled by arbitration.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 21-2, Ex. A at 21. This suggests that questions 21 regarding the interpretation of the agreements should be decided by an arbitrator. 22 Even if this language was not clear enough on its own to delegate issues of arbitrability, 23 the agreements also state that the arbitration is governed by the rules of the AAA. Id. The AAA 24 Commercial Arbitration Rules, in turn, provide that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule 25 on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or 26 validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” See 27 28 5 1 AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures R-7(a) (emphasis added).1 “The 2 Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that incorporation of the AAA rules can constitute clear and 3 unmistakable delegation of the arbitrability question.” Brennan, 796 F.3d at 1130.2 The Court 4 therefore finds that the parties’ arbitration agreement expressly delegates questions of the 5 arbitrability of any dispute to the arbitrator. See Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 72 (“[U]nless 6 [Plaintiff] challenge[s] the delegation provision specifically, [the Court] must treat it as valid 7 under § 2 [of the FAA], and must enforce it under §§ 3 and 4 . . . .”); accord Boatman v. Houzz 8 Inc., No. 22-CV-00738-JSW, 2022 WL 1528171, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022) (collecting 9 cases); Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401-EJD, 2016 10 WL 4492588, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016) (same). Because the arbitrability of this dispute is itself a question for an arbitrator, it is neither United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 necessary nor appropriate for the Court to consider the parties’ positions regarding the scope of the 13 arbitration agreements as they pertain to Plaintiff’s claim for intentional interference with 14 prospective economic relations. 15 B. 16 Defendants argue that Plaintiff has included unnecessary and scandalous assertions in the Motion to Strike 17 complaint. See Dkt. No. 21 at 5–6, 15–16. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were 18 “exploit[ing] a family member for financial gain.” See Compl. at ¶ 1. Defendants ask the Court to 19 strike these allegations. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court may strike “from any pleading 20 21 any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 12(f). “Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because they are often used as 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See American Arbitration Association, http://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/CommercialRules_Web.pdf (last visited August 16, 2022). 2 Although the Ninth Circuit in Brennan left open the question of whether its holding only applies to sophisticated parties and commercial contracts, it noted that “the vast majority of the circuits that hold that incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent do so without explicitly limiting that holding to sophisticated parties or to commercial contracts.” Brennan, 796 F.3d at 1130–31. The Court need not explore this nuance here, because Plaintiff entered into a business agreement with Defendants, and does not argue that he was an unsophisticated party. 6 1 delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.” Z.A. ex 2 rel. K.A. v. St. Helena Unified Sch. Dist., No. C 09-03557 JSW, 2010 WL 370333, at *2 (N.D. 3 Cal. Jan. 25, 2010). “Where there is any doubt as to the relevance of the challenged allegations, 4 courts generally err on the side permitting the allegations to stand . . . .” See id. (citing Fantasy, 5 Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, 6 Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 (1994)). This is particularly true when the moving party shows no 7 prejudice and when striking the allegations will not streamline the ultimate resolution of the 8 action. Id. The Court understands that the parties have strong and divergent views about the facts in United States District Court Northern District of California 9 10 this case. However, mere disagreement is not enough to render allegations unnecessary or 11 scandalous. Defendants no doubt disagree with Plaintiff’s allegations, but they provide 12 background information about the parties’ professional relationships and the alleged conduct in 13 this case. Additionally, because the case will proceed to arbitration, granting the motion to strike 14 would not streamline this action at all. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ motion on this 15 basis. 16 III. 17 CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration and STAYS the case 18 pending completion of arbitration. The Court DENIES the motion to strike. The parties are 19 further DIRECTED to file a joint status report regarding the status of the arbitration proceeding 20 120 days from the date of this order and every 120 days thereafter unless otherwise ordered. The 21 Clerk is directed to administratively close this case. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 8/17/2022 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
