Leonard

MEMORANDUM **

Equitable Life Assurance Society (“Equitable”) appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not recited herein, except as necessary.

I

Equitable claims that the district court erred in concluding that the Leonards’ claims do not fall within the settlement agreement’s arbitration provision. *687 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 , “establishes that ... any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration [when] the problem at hand is ... construction of the contractas] language.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). In other words, a controversy falls within a valid arbitration clause “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” Marchese v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 734 F.2d 414, 419 (9th Cir.1984) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The settlement agreement provides for arbitration “[i]n the event any disagreements] should arise between Equitable…