NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KEY BRAND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., No. 08-56871
a Delaware corporation,
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02416-AHM-E
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM *
DANCAP PRODUCTIONS, INC., an
Ontario corporation,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER, WARDLAW and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dancap Productions, Inc. (“Dancap”) appeals the district court’s order
granting Key Brand Entertainment, Inc.’s (“Key Brand”) petition to compel
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
arbitration. The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and
we have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not err in concluding that the arbitration provision in
the Additional Rights Agreement encompasses Key Brand’s request for an
interpretation of the parties’ agreements. See Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583
F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The parties’ dispute as to the
proper interpretation of the agreements falls squarely within the arbitration
provision, which covers of “[a]ny dispute . . . arising out of or relating to” the
agreement, “including, but not limited to, the interpretation . . . thereof.” Because
the arbitration provision expressly covers disputes as to the interpretation of the
agreement, the provision’s exclusion of “claims for injunctive or equitable relief”
does not apply. Therefore, the district court acted properly in ordering arbitration
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho
Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2