Joel Nazara v. Fr Log Homes, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Joel and Connie Nazara (“the Nazaras”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their diversity action against FR Log Homes, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 9 U.S.C. § 16 . We affirm.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, absent a contrary provision in the ... agreement, the existence and scope of a contract to arbitrate are questions for the court to determine in the first instance.” Cal. Trucking Ass’n v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, 679 F.2d 1275 , 1280 (9th Cir.1981) (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 , 80 S.Ct. 1347 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960)). Here, the district court correctly concluded that the arbitration clause encompasses the dispute at issue, because the clause states that “all disputes between the parties” arising from the construction agreement must be arbitrated in Boundary County, Idaho. See Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 732-33 (9th Cir.2006). The district court also correctly determined that the arbitration agreement is valid, because the enforceability of an arbitration provision does not turn on state public policy. See Buckeye…