Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-8618 civilTHE ARLINGTON GROUP, INC., : Plaintiff · VS. BETH A. BURKHOLDER, DBA B.A. BURKHOLDER CONSULTING, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-8618 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION- LAW IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT AND NOW, this defendant are DENIED. C. Lee Anderson, Esquire For the Plaintiff John H. Broujos, Esquire For the Defendant BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER day of April, 2001, the preliminary objections of the BY THE COURT, Hess, J. :rlm THE ARLINGTON GROUP, INC., · Plaintiff · VS. BETH A. BURKHOLDER, DBA B.A. BURKHOLDER CONSULTING, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-8618 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION- LAW IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the defendant has filed preliminary objections alleging that the plaintiff' s complaint fails to conform to law and specifically that the dispute between the parties ought to be sent to arbitration. By way of a factual background, on October 11, 1999, the plaintiff in this matter, Arlington Group, Inc., (Arlington) entered into a contract with the defendant, B.A. Burkholder Consulting (Burkholder). The contract required the defendant to perform certain consulting services in exchange for payment from the plaintiff. The parties agreed that all of the disputes under the contract would be resolved through binding arbitration. The contract was . eventually terminated on April 15, 2000. On December 14, 2000, the plaintiff filed the instant claim in replevin to reclaim business and employee records held by the defendant. The plaintiff also seeks the value of the property if not returned and related damages. DISCUSSION In matters involving one party's attempt to prevent the other party from proceeding to arbitration, judicial inquiry is limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and, if so, (2) whether the dispute involved is within the scope of the 00-8618 CIVIL arbitration provision. Smith v. Cumberland Group, 455 Pa. Super. 276, 687 A.2d 1167 (1997). In this case, it is quite clear that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. Thus, the only question left to consider is whether a dispute regarding the detention of physical property falls within the purview of the arbitration clause. In determining the scope of the arbitration clause, it is necessary to examine the intent of the parties. "Courts should apply the rules of contractual construction, adopting an interpretation that gives paramount importance to the intent of the parties..." Midomo Co. v. Presbyterian Hous. Dev. Co., 739 A.2d 180 (Pa. Super. 1999). The contractual agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause that states that all disputes arising under the contract are to be resolved through binding arbitration. The defendant asserts that disputes relating to the detention of the plaintiff's business and employee records fall under the contract. In light of the fact that the business and employee records have no relation at all to the contract, we conclude that this type of dispute was not something which both parties intended to arbitrate. The defendant relies on Shadduck v. Christopher J. Kaclik, Inc., 713 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 1998) to support the proposition that arbitration is appropriate in this case. Shadduck dealt with property owners who entered into a building agreement with a contractor. The owners later filed a complaint alleging that the builder made false representations regarding his ability to construct the house in a workmanlike manner and that he engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. In Shadduck, the relevant language of the arbitration clause entered into by the parties stated that "[a]ll claims or disputes between the Contractor and the Owner arising out of, or relating to, this Contract or the breach thereof shall be decided with arbitration..." .Id. at 637. As a result of that language, the court held that the parties intended to submit all of their grievances to arbitration, 00-8618 CIVIL regardless of whether the claims were based in tort or contract. Id___:. Shadduck can be distinguished on both the facts of this case as well as on the language of the arbitration clause itself. Although the defendant in the instant case points out that the language in the arbitration clause is similar to the clause in Shadduck, it is clear that they are not identical. The relevant portion of the arbitration clause in the instant case states that "[a]ll disputes hereunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration." In contrast, the language of the Shadduck arbitration clause includes the extra terms "arising out of, or relating to, this contract..." Id. In Shadduck, the dispute between the parties directly related to the construction of the home, specifically the quality (or lack thereof) of the workmanship. In the instant case, the dispute over the retention of documents has nothing to do with the subject of the contract. The contract makes no mention as to either the exchange of these documents or the defendant's need for them. It cannot be said therefore that the parties intended this replevin matter to be submitted to arbitration. ORDER AND NOW, this defendant are DENIED. day of April, 2001, the preliminary objections of the BY THE COURT, C. Lee Anderson, Esquire For the Plaintiff ess, J. John H. Broujos, Esquire .For the Defendant