PRM Energy Sys., Inc. v. Primenergy, L.L.C., No. 08-1987
In an action for tortious interference with, and inducement to breach, agreements regarding the development of a gasification technology, grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in its reliance on a concerted misconduct theory of alternative estoppel to grant defendant nonsignatory's motion to compel arbitration; and 2) in light of the interpretive preference for arbitration, plaintiff's tort claims were "disputes arising under" the agreements and were therefore within the scope of the broad arbitration clause.
Submitted: October 15, 2008
Filed: January 8, 2010
Opinion by Judge Melloy