Harris Capital Fund, LLC v. Grillo , 160 F. App'x 727 ( 2005 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 23, 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
HARRIS CAPITAL FUND, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-3106
(D.C. No. 04-CV-1036-JTM)
CARLA L. GRILLO, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Harris Capital Fund, LLC, (Harris) appeals the order of the
district court granting appellee Carla L. Grillo’s motion to dismiss. We have
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), Ansari v. Qwest Commc’ns Corp.,
414 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
Harris brought this action in district court to compel arbitration on a
personal guaranty agreement or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory
judgment finding Grillo’s claims in the dispute to be without merit. Grillo moved
to dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue and
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court
refused to address the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, finding instead that venue in the
federal district court in Kansas was improper. We review a dismissal for
improper venue de novo, Pierce v. Shorty Small’s of Branson Inc., 137 F.3d 1190,
1191 (10th Cir. 1998), and also apply that standard to the denial of a motion to
compel arbitration, Ansari, 414 F.3d at 1218.
The guaranty agreement at issue contained the following provision:
Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to this
Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in
New York City, State of New York, in accordance with the rules then
in effect of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon
the award rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
Aplt. App. at 10.
Based on this language, the district court held that “[t]he proper forum for
compelling arbitration . . . would be the courts of New York. New York is the
-2-
exclusive venue for Harris’s claims.” Aplt. App. at 67. Harris argues that, while
the arbitration itself must take place in New York, any court of competent
jurisdiction can compel that arbitration.
Since the district court’s decision in this case, this court has published
Ansari, 414 F.3d 1214, in which we joined the majority of courts holding that
“where the parties agreed to arbitrate in a particular forum only a district court in
that forum has authority to compel arbitration under [9 U.S.C.] § 4. In other
words, a district court lacks authority to compel arbitration in other districts, or in
its own district if another has been specified for arbitration.” Id. at 1219-20
(citations and quotation omitted). The district court in this case correctly reached
the same result.
Although the district court did not indicate that its dismissal was without
prejudice, the other unresolved issues raised either in the complaint or in the
motion to dismiss can still be raised in the proper forum. See Hollander v.
Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289 F.3d 1193, 1216-17 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that
where jurisdictional dismissal did not address the merits the dismissal should
have been “without prejudice to filing in an appropriate forum”).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
-3-
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-4-