WPCN =/YU5WSO@[qu])}ݓˀ>Sݡ]e`D n/HDA9wO!ga&=[:/hU"{8O6KNNF,,VWb4,m64S+0T ;%ջ-Bd>;i3kM8Lع$Y:d3nʱw#ըTP1E#)m+v= Rqw>Npv:= TĐYRQ~(@e˘q*T' p';wVՇorá/\!և궅GuQe,]Z'(n]þ?O2`E1/g^h6n<ᄚ(/87k3o za\Dmf@)~Ҏz֣ͥSU4C/Ld|hzɲ.=bX ~f04o@#p %9 U 8? 0Gw U: 0 U@ nT N4^ 6wB4FZi mkEVfXaZ 0DnnN9^;UBb 0U 08 0 0 0 0X 0  0 0_ 0 B 0 0 0f 0 0 0[ 0 0 0! 0! 0" 0X# 0$ 0$ 0D% 0% 0n& 0& 0' 0h( 0>&) 0d) 0\* 0>+ 0 , 0- 0- 0. 0/ 02R0 00 0:1 0Y1 0_2 0 r2 0|3 04 B*7 D/.7 D+]7 07 D/9 09 06: 0: 0:; 0^< 0<a< 1e<U6=U>8=U*v= 1u= 72>>G>G>;D 0)H %I !DI eI +zI 'I I %I ! J -J 1BJ -sJ !J -JJ[JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJUNINHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X<4 9Z+ Courier New ($XOXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(X(2$ !XTXXX        0  (9 Z(Times New Roman <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@z4 46XyFiles3|xU $XIXXX      *    _ԀOftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation.TABLE A(#$  0   } $XIXXX      4    _ԀThetestusedisasfollows:"(1)Isthereanagreementin  writingtoarbitratethesubjectofthedispute?(2)Doesthe  agreementprovideforarbitrationintheterritoryofasignatory \ oftheConvention?(3)Doestheagreementariseoutofalegal 2 relationship,whethercontractualornot,whichisconsideredas X commercial?(4)IsapartytotheagreementnotanAmerican . citizen,ordoesthecommercialrelationshiphavesomereasonable   relationwithoneormoreforeignstates?"See_Ledee_,684F.2dat   18687(internalcitationsomitted).L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5   d*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7N(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7O(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dM)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7O(X75+ ` hp x 5  M)2dxd0KS.SampleKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  &()*+,-. 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\i)  $XIXXX      3    _Ԁ_Presstek_Ԁargues,asitdidbelow,thatwelackstatutory  jurisdiction,becauseMarkshasnotbeen"aggrievedbythealleged  failure,neglect,orrefusalof[_Presstek_]toarbitrate,"whichis \ aprerequisitetoanordercompellingarbitrationunder9U.S.C. 2 4.Accordingto_Presstek_,absenta"failure,neglect,or X refusal"byittoarbitrate,thereisnotajusticiablecaseor . controversy.Thedistrictcourtdidnotaddressthisargument.   Markshasallegedthat_Presstek_Ԁignoredrequeststoarbitrateonat   leasttwooccasions,creatingatleastsomequestion,onthis `   record,astowhether_Presstek_Ԁhasfailed,neglected,orrefusedto  arbitratewithinthemeaningof9U.S.C.4.Wedonotresolve  thatquestion,orwhetherthisrequirementisjurisdictionalin \ nature,orwhethertherequirementunder9U.S.C.4appliesat 2 allinthecontextoftheNewYorkConvention.Weaffirmon X differentgrounds.  $XIXXX      2    _ԀTheAugust9,2005orderalsodeniedanearliermotionby  _Presstek_Ԁtodismissthepetition._Presstek_Ԁhadarguedthat the  _PCA_'sdecisionnottohearthecasewasan"award"withinthe \ meaningoftheFAA ,thattheonlycourtwiththecompetenceto 2 overturnthatawardundertheNewYorkConventionwasacourtin X theNetherlands,andthatMarks'petition,properlyconstruedasa . motiontovacateanarbitralaward,wasuntimely.Thedistrict   courtrejectedthesearguments,findingthatthe_PCA_'srefusalto   arbitratethedisputewasnotan"award"undertheNewYork `  ConventionandthatMarks'petitionwastimelyundertheFAA. 6   _Presstek_Ԁdoesnotappealthesedeterminations. ( $bFEDERAL CASESbSTATE CASESbCASESbFEDERAL STATUTESbSTATE STATUTESbSTATUTESbFEDERAL RULESbSTATE RULESbRULESbFEDERAL REGULATIONSbSTATE REGULATIONSbREGULATIONSbOTHER AUTHORITIES Q $XIXXX      1    _Ԁ_UNCITRAL_ԀistheUnitedNationsCommissiononInternational  TradeLaw,whichhasissuedarbitrationrules.SeeMitsubishi  MotorCorp.v._Soler_ԁChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,473U.S.614,633 \ n.17(1985);_Karaha_Ԁ_Bodas_ԀCo.v._Perusahaan_Ԁ_Pertambangan_Ԁ_Minyak_ԀDan 2 Gas_Bumi_Ԁ_Negara_,364F.3d274,282(5thCir.2004). Z6Times New Roman Regular !XIXXX  _TRXܐ3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !     XXXXIl)XXUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#XXl)#  4XXFortheFirstCircuit#XX4x# #XIXXX#  A') ` dE< ` A   No.052794 K  @  MARKS3_ZET_ԄERNSTMARKSGMBH&CO.KG,  G  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @tt)v. O  @hh#_PRESSTEK_,INC., K  @<< Defendant,Appellee.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE 4 @@*[Hon.JosephA._DiClerico_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q @@((TorruellaandLynch,CircuitJudges,  andYoung, #  *      ׀DistrictJudge.   A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#     KevinM.Fitzgerald,withwhomJohnE._Friberg_,Jr.andNixon  "Z% Peabody_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellant. "0&   JamesD.Rosenberg,withwhom_Arpiar_ԀG.Saunders,Jr.and #' Shaheen&Gordon,P.A.wereonbrief,forappellee. $( *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '^"+'^"  SIr'", @38908@SJuly11,2006 H(#.  RHC)n$/" @38908 @ R(r'"0  (* ! *J&1? Ї  8IXXdd8*,X` XX* ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thiscaseraisessomeunusual  issuesaboutactionsseekingtocompelinternationalarbitration. x  ` Theplaintiff,Marks3_Zet_ԄErnstMarksGMBH("Marks"),a $t Germancompany,andthedefendant,_Presstek_,Inc.("_Presstek_"),a   DelawarecorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinNew |  Hampshire,in2000enteredintoacommercialagreement,which ( x  includedanarbitrationclause. $   ` ThearbitrationclauseisgovernedbyChapterTwoofthe   FederalArbitrationAct(FAA),9U.S.C.201208,which ,|  implementstheUnitedNationsConventionontheRecognitionand ( EnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards("NewYorkConvention"),  June10,1958,21_U.S.T._Ԁ2517,330_U.N.T.S._Ԁ38,reprintedfollowing 0 9U.S.C.201(ratifiedbytheUnitedStatesonSeptember30, , 1970).See_Ledee_v._Ceramiche_Ԁ_Ragno_,684F.2d184,186(1stCir.  1982).ChapterOneoftheFAA,9U.S.C.116,appliesto 4 proceedingsunderChapterTwo,totheextentthatthereisno 0 conflict.See9U.S.C.208.    ` ThedistrictcourtdismissedMarks'petitiontocompel 8!" arbitrationbecauseitunderstoodthereliefMarkswasseekingwas "4$ unavailableonMarks'pleadings.Initspetition,Marksmentioned $& onlyaparticulararbitralbody,thePermanentCourtofArbitration <&!( (_PCA_)atTheHagueintheNetherlands,andinalaterpleading,it '8#* statedthat"[_t]he_ԀordersoughtfromthiscourtbyMarks...will )$, addressandresolvethe_PCA_'suncertainty"asto"whetherithas @+&. theauthoritytoact."Basedonthesepleadings,Markssoughtan  ordertocompelarbitrationofthedisputebeforethe_PCA_,undera \ setofruleswhichthe_PCA_Ԁhadalreadystatedwerenottherules X thatwouldallowittoexercisejurisdictionoverthearbitration,   underthePCA'sownproceduralguidelines.Afterdismissalofits `  case,Marksthenattemptedtochangecourse,onamotiontothe  \  districtcourtforreconsideration.Thecourtdeniedthemotion.   Weaffirmthejudgmentofdismissal. d    I. `     ` Thebasicfactsrelevanttothisappealareundisputed.   _Presstek_ԀandMarkssupplyproductsfortheprintingindustry.In h December2000,_Presstek_ԀandMarksenteredintoacontractwhereby d Marksagreedtomarket_Presstek_'sproductsinpartsofEurope.   Underthecontract,neitherpartywaspermittedtoterminatethe l contractforthreeyears,exceptundercertainconditions.  h  ` UnderSection10(g)ofthecontract,thepartiesagreed  tosubmitdisputestoarbitration: p  ` ` ApplicableLawandJurisdiction.Anydispute !l" ...betweenthePartiesarisingoutofor !B# relatingtothisAgreementwhichcannotbe "$ settledamicablyshallbereferredtoand #% determinedbyarbitrationintheHagueunder t$& theInternationalArbitrationrules.The J% ' rulingbythearbitrationcourtshallbefinal  &p!( andbindingandthePartiesundertaketoabide &F") byandtocarryouttheawardimmediatelyand '#* voluntarily.Intheeventthatsuchawardis (#+ notimmediatelyabidedbyandcarriedout,the x)$, awardofwhatevernaturemaybeenforced N*%- withoutreviewinanycourtofcompetent $+t&. jurisdiction.Thearbitrationawardshall +J'/ determinewhichPartyshallbeartheexpenses  ofthearbitrationortheportionthereof  whicheachPartyshallbear. \ ` ` Thearbitrationclausewaspoorlydrafted:First,theclausedoes X notidentifythespecificarbitralbodyatTheHaguethatwould   adjudicateanydispute.Second,thecontractlanguage `  ("theInternationalArbitrationrules")suggeststhataparticular  \  setofarbitrationruleswouldgovernthedispute;but,asitturns   out,therearenorulescalledthe"InternationalArbitration d  rules." `   ` OnApril4,2002,_Presstek_Ԁprovidednoticethatitwished   toterminatethecontract.AccordingtoMarks,thistermination h constitutedabreachofcontract.Marksthereafterattemptedto d have_Presstek_Ԁagreetoarbitratethedispute,buttonoavail.  Marksfirstasked_Presstek_Ԁtoarbitratethedisputeunderthe l _UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules_q #  1      _ԀonNovember29,2002.Thisrequestled h tonegotiations,whichwereultimatelyunsuccessful.   ` Marksmadeasecondrequestforarbitrationto_Presstek_ p  onMarch27,2003,but_Presstek_Ԁdidnotrespond.Therecorddoes !l" notcontaineithertheNovember2002orMarch2003requestsby "$ Marks,anddoesnotrevealwhetherMarksasked_Presstek_Ԁto t$& arbitratetheirdisputebeforeaparticularforum.  &p!(  ` When_Presstek_Ԁdidnotrespond,Marksdidnotgotocourt  toseektocompelarbitrationoralternativelytosueforbreachof \ contract. X A. ` ProceedingsBeforethe_PCA_    ` After_Presstek_ԀdidnotrespondtoitsMarch2003 `  arbitrationrequest,Markssentletterstothe_PCA_,onJune4and  \  July31,2003,askingthe_PCA_Ԁtodesignatean"Appointing   Authority"thatwouldinitiatearbitrationproceedingsandappoint d  arbitrators.Initsapplication,Marksassertedtothe_PCA_Ԁthat `  underthearbitrationclause"[_i]t_Ԁisevidentfromthechoiceof   TheHagueastheforumforthearbitrationthatthe'International h ArbitrationRules'referredtointheclausearethoseformulated d by_UNCITRAL_,sincetheseauthorizetheSecretary-Generalofthe_PCA_  basedinTheHaguetoappointmemberstothetribunalorto l nominateaso-calledAppointingAuthority." h  ` OnAugust4,2003,afterreceiptofMarks'request,an  AssistantLegalCounselofthe_PCA_Ԁsentaletterto_Presstek_,with p  acopytoMarks,informingPresstekofthearbitrationrequestby !l" Marks.TheletterraisedquestionsaboutthecompetenceofthePCA "$ toactasanarbitratorinthecase: t$& ` ` Priortoacting...,theSecretary-General  &p!( [ofthePCA]firstsatisfieshimself,onthe &F") basisofaprimafaciescreeningofthe '#* documentationsubmittedbytheparties,that (#+ heiscompetenttoact.TheSecretary- x)$, General'scompetencemayderivefromthe N*%- parties'agreementtotheapplicationofthe $+t&. UNCITRALArbitrationRules,Articles6and7 +J'/ ofwhichdescribehisrole,orfromanyother  agreementthatcallsforhimtoact.  ` /` //The_PCA_Ԁletternotedthatthelanguageintheparties'arbitration 2 referredonlyto"theInternationalArbitrationrules"and"The . Hagueastheplaceofarbitration."The_PCA_Ԁletterasked_Presstek_   toprovideitscommentswithrespecttoMarks'application,after 6   whichthematterwouldbesubmittedtotheSecretary-Generalofthe  2  PCAforconsideration.    ` _Presstek_,inanAugust14,2003lettertothe_PCA_ :  requestinganextensionoftime,notedthatitsbasicpositionwas 6 thataclearagreementtoapply_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRuleswas  requiredbeforethe_PCA_Ԁcouldexercisejurisdictionoverthe > arbitration,thattherewasnosuchclearagreement,andthatthe : referenceto"InternationalArbitrationrules"intheparties'  contractwastoovagueonthepoint. B  ` The_PCA_Ԁgranted_Presstek_'srequestforanextension,in > aletteronAugust18,2003,andnoted_Presstek_'sobjection.The  letterreiteratedthePCA'spolicythat"beforeactinginmatters F ! suchasthis,theSecretaryGeneralofthePCAfirstsatisfies !B# himself,onthebasisofaprimafaciescreeningofthedocuments #% submittedtohim,thatheiscompetenttoact."Theletteralso J% ' notedthat"[w]hentheSecretaryGeneralisnotsatisfiedofhis &F") competencetoact,partiesmay,ofcourse,seekimplementationof (#+ theirarbitrationagreementelsewhereorbeforetheappropriate N*%- nationalcourts."ThePCAinvitedPresstek"tocommentonwhether +J'/ itwishedtoagreetotheapplicationoftheUNCITRALArbitration  Rulesinthepresentdispute." \  ` OnOctober20,2003,Presstekfileditscommentswiththe X _PCA_.Itrefusedtostipulatetoapplicationofthe_UNCITRAL_   ArbitrationRulesandreiterateditspositionthatthecontractwas `  notsufficientlyclearastowhetherthe_UNCITRAL_Ԁruleswouldapply  \  andthatthe_PCA_Ԁshouldthereforedeclinejurisdiction._Presstek_   arguedthatonlyacourt,andnotthePCA,couldresolvethe d  ambiguitiesandconcludedthatthePCAshoulddeclinetoarbitrate `  thematter"untilsuchtimeasa...courtindicatesthatit   may."TherecorddoesnotcontainanyreplybyMarks. h  ` OnOctober21,2003,thePCA,inalettertotheparties, d statedthattheSecretary-Generalhadconsideredtheparties'  submissionsandconcludedthatitdidnothavethecompetenceto l actbecause,basedonitsinterpretationofthearbitration h agreement,thepartieshadnotagreedtotheapplicationof  UNCITRALrules: p  ` ` TheSecretary-Generalconsidersthathemay !l" designateanAppointingAuthoritypursuantto !B# theUNCITRALArbitrationRulesonlywhenthe "$ partiestoacontracthaveagreedthat #% disputesinrelationtothatcontractshallbe t$& referredtoarbitrationundertheUNCITRAL J% ' ArbitrationRules.Withrespecttothe  &p!( disputearisingfromtheparties'[contract], &F") theSecretary-Generalisnotsatisfied,onthe '#* basisofaprimafaciescreeningofthe (#+ documentationsubmittedbytheparties,that x)$, heiscompetenttoactinthismatter. N*%-   $+t&. ` A` A!ATheletterconcluded,however,byinvitingtheparties"toseekthe   interpretationoftheirarbitrationagreementfromanycourthaving \ jurisdiction."ItnotedthatarbitrationatthePCAmightbe X possible,"[g]iventhatparagraph10(g)oftheAgreementspecifies   TheHagueastheplaceofarbitration." `   ` OnMarch25,2004,Marksrequested_Presstek_Ԁtoarbitrate  \  thedisputeagain,thistimeundertheNetherlandsArbitrationAct.   Again,therecorddoesnotcontainthisrequest,orrevealwhether d  Markshadaskedforarbitrationataparticularforum,eitherthe `  _PCA_Ԁorelsewhere._Presstek_Ԁdidnotrespondtothisrequest.   B. ` ProceedingsbeforetheDistrictCourt h  ` Marksdidnotchallengethe_PCA_'srefusaltohearthe d case,eitheratthe_PCA_ԀitselforinacourtintheNetherlands,or  attempttoarbitratethedisputeinanyotherforumatTheHague. l Itdidnotimmediatelyseekaninterpretationoftheagreementby h acourtofcompetentjurisdiction,asthe_PCA_Ԁhadinvitedittodo.  Instead,itwaitednearlyeighteenmonths,untilApril5,2005,to p  fileamotiontocompelarbitrationinU.S.DistrictCourtinNew !l" HampshireundertheNewYorkConvention,asimplementedby9U.S.C. "$ 4and206. t$&  ` Marks'petitionwasfiledonedayaftertheNewHampshire  &p!( threeyearstatuteoflimitationsoncontractactionshadexpired, '#* assumingthatthecauseofactionaccruedonApril4,2002,the x)$, date_Presstek_ԀprovidedtheterminationnoticetoMarks.Marks,for $+t&. itspart,disputesthattheNewHampshirelimitationsperiod  applies,insteadarguingthattheNewYorkConventionrequires \ applicationoftheNetherlands'statuteoflimitations,asthe X partiesagreedthattheNetherlandswouldbethesitusfor   arbitration. `   ` Initspetitiontocompelarbitration,Marksaskedforan  \  order"direct[ing]thatarbitrationproceedinthemannersetforth   intheAgreement:inTheHague,andthattheCourtordersuch d  arbitrationtoproceedundertheAmericanArbitrationAct's `  InternationalRules."(emphasesadded).Marksalsorequestedthat   thecourtorderPresstektosubmittoarbitration;holdahearing h onMarks'petitionunderSection4oftheFAA;andaward"costs, d interest,attorneys'feesandsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe  Courtdeemsappropriateandjust."Astotheproceedingsbefore l thePCA,Marksstatedonlythat"[t]hePresidentofthePCA... h concludedthattheapplicationofthe[UNCITRAL]Rulestothe  Agreementwasnotappropriateandgavenofurtheropinionwith p  respecttothe_Agreement."_ !l"  ` TherewereanumberofproblemswithMarks'petition. "$ AlthoughMarksstatedthatitwantedarbitrationat"TheHague" t$& (whereanumberofgroupsprovidearbitration),theonlyarbitral  &p!( bodymentionedinthepetitionwasthe_PCA_.Furthermore,thereis '#* nosetofrulescalled"theAmericanArbitrationAct's x)$, InternationalRules."Itwasnotuntilitsmotionfor $+t&. reconsiderationthatMarksclarifiedthatit"intendedtoreference  theAmericanArbitrationAssociation'sinternationalrules."But \ whateverrulesMarksintendedtoreference,Marks'petitiondidnot X takethepositionthattheparties'arbitrationclausecontemplated   applicationofthe_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules,which,basedonthe `  _PCA_Ԁletters,weretheonlyruleswhichwouldgivethe_PCA_Ԁthe  \  competencetoactintheparties'dispute.    ` Thus,anaturalreadingofthecomplaintwasthatMarks d  wasseekingarbitrationofthedisputeatthePCAunderruleswhich `  theSecretaryGeneralofthe_PCA_Ԁhadalreadystatedcouldnotgive   the_PCA_Ԁthecompetencetoact.Thedistrictcourt,inanAugust9, h 2005order,gavefairwarningofitsconcernthatitwouldbe d unabletograntthereliefMarkswasseeking,usingthelanguageof  _mootness_.ItorderedMarkstoshowcausewhyitspetitionto l compelarbitrationshouldnotbedismissed.a #  2      ׀ h  ` MarksfiledamemoranduminresponseonSeptember1,  2005.Markstatedthat"[_t]he_Ԁordersoughtfromthiscourtby p  Marks...willaddressandresolvethe_PCA_'suncertainty"asto !l" "whetherithastheauthoritytoact."Marksreliedonthe  statementinthe_PCA_Ԁletterthat"thepartiesareinvitedtoinform \ the_PCA_Ԁshouldtheywishtoutilizetheservicesofthe_PCA_Ԁinthe X administrationofthecase."Basedonitsreadingofthe_PCA_   letter,Marksarguedthatitwasintruthonlyseekingthe `  interpretationoftheagreementwhichthePCAhadinvitedan  \  interpretationastowhicharbitralrulestoapplyandthata   disputeaboutthatveryquestioncouldnotrenderthecasemootor d  precludethereliefMarkssought.Marksdidnotseektoamendits `  claimsforreliefinthepetitiontocompelarbitration.    ` ThedistrictcourtdismissedMarks'petitiononSeptember h 20,2005,onthegroundsthat"thereliefMarksseeks,anorder d requiringPresstektoarbitratetheirdisputeatthePCAunderthe  AmericanArbitrationAct'sInternationalRules,isunavailable." l Thedistrictcourtreadthe_PCA_Ԁlettertosaythatthe_PCA_Ԁwill h "proceedwitharbitrationonlyifthepartieshaveagreedto  arbitrateunderthe_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules."Thecourt p  observedthatMarks"didnotpleadaclaimseekingtointerpretthe !l" agreementtodeterminewhicharbitrationruleswouldapply,"did "$ not"includeanyallegationsastothemeaningoftheparties' t$& agreementwithrespecttowhicharbitrationruleswouldapply,"nor  &p!( "even_suggest[ed_]thatthepartiesagreedtothe_UNCITRAL_ '#*  ArbitrationRules." x)$,  ` MarksmovedforreconsiderationonOctober4,2005,under   Fed.R.Civ.P.59(e).Itarguedthatthedistrictcourtwas \ misreadingthe_PCA_Ԁletter,andthatthe_PCA_Ԁwould"assistparties X ...pursuanttotheorderofanycourtwithjurisdiction"evenif   thepartiesdidnotagreetoapplythe_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules. `   ` Forthefirsttime,Marks_clarified_Ԁthatthe_PCA_Ԁletter  \  wasimmaterial.Itwasimmaterialbecausearbitrationcouldbehad   ineitheradifferentforumorunderadifferentsetofarbitration d  rules: `  ` ` Markshasprayedthat,followingtherequired   hearingortrial,theAAAInternationalRules  apply,giventhattheyareclosesttothe h expressedintentofthepartiesintheir > agreement....However,Markshasalso d askedinitsPetitionfortheCourttogrant : whatever"reliefitdeemsjustand  appropriate"consistentwiththeparties'  agreementtoarbitrate,theNewYork l Conventionandthestrongstateandfederal B policiesinfavorofarbitration.Itis h certainlypossiblethat,followingahearing > andtrialifnecessary,theCourtmayfindan  alternativelocationinTheHague,and/or  rules,appropriateinordertoeffectuatethe p  parties'agreementtoarbitration. F ! ` Xh` fhth(emphasisaddedandcitationomitted).Marksnotedthattherewere !B# otherarbitralbodiesatTheHaguebesidesthe_PCA_Ԁthatcouldhear #% thecase,andarguedthatthedistrictcourtwasobligatedunder J% ' theNewYorkConventionandSection4oftheFAAtoholdahearing &F") oratrialtodetermine"thenatureoftheparties'arbitration (#+  agreementasitrelatestoanyambiguousterms,includingbutnot N*%- limited[to]whichrulestoapplyandtheagencyandorganization  topresideorsupervise." \   ` Thiswasnotthereliefclearlysoughtintheoriginal X complaint.Norwasthisreliefsoughtafterthedistrictcourt   warnedMarksoftheproblemswithhowithadframedthiscase. `  Thistheorywasclearlyarticulatedforthefirsttimesomethree  \  andahalfyearsafterthecontractdisputearose,twoyearsafter   the_PCA_Ԁhaddeclinedtoacceptcompetenceoverthearbitration,and d  sixmonthsafterMarkshadfileditsfederalcourtpetitionto `  compelarbitration.    ` ThedistrictcourtdeniedMarks'motionfor h reconsideration.Marksappeals,arguing(1)thatthedistrict d courterredinitsinitialconclusionthatitcouldnotgrantthe  reliefrequested,and(2)thatthedistrictcourtshould, l nonetheless,haveheldahearingtofindadifferentforumatwhich h toorderthearbitration,underperhapsadifferentsetofrules.    II. p     ` Wehavejurisdictiontohearthisappealfromafinal !l" order,under28U.S.C.1291.__ #  3      _ԀWereviewdenovoadistrict "$ court'srefusaltocompelarbitration._InterGen_ԀN.V.v._Grina_,344  F.3d134,141(1stCir.2003).Wereviewthedenialofthemotion \ toreconsiderforabuseofdiscretion._Aybar_v.Crispin-Reyes,118 X F.3d10,15(1stCir.1997).   A. ` ProprietyoftheOriginalOrderofDismissal `   ` 1. InabilitytoGranttheReliefRequested  \   ` Marks'argumentthatthedistrictcourterredinholding   thatthereliefMarkssoughtwasunavailableislargelybasedon d  Marks'readingoftheOctober21,2003letterfromthe_PCA_,which `  wasrejectedbythedistrictcourt.Marksarguesthatthedistrict   courtmisconstruedthe_PCA_Ԁletter,andthatthecorrectreadingis h "thatthe_PCA_Ԁinvitedthepartiestocompletetheadministrationof d thecase(1)iftheystipulatetothe_UNCITRAL_ԀRules,or,(2)ifa  courtofcompetentjurisdiction...interpretedthearbitration l provisionoftheirAgreement(nomatterwhatjurisdiction,venueor h rulestheCourtdesignatesundertheagreement)."(emphasis  added). p   ` Marks'readingofthe_PCA_Ԁletterisstrainedatbest. !l" Theletterstatesincleartermsthatthe_PCA_Ԁwouldbecompetentto "$ actinthesecircumstances"onlywhenpartiestoacontracthave t$& agreedthatdisputesinrelationtothatcontractshallbereferred  toarbitrationunderthe_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules."(emphases \ added).Indeed,Marksputintotherecordthepublishedprocedural X guidelinesofthe_PCA_,whichsupportthecourt'sreading:the   guidelinesstatethat"[_t]he_Ԁrequestfordesignationofan `  appointingauthority...shouldbeaccompaniedby...[a]copy  \  ofthearbitrationclauseoragreementestablishingthe   applicabilityofthe_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules."(emphasisadded) d   ` ThedistrictcourtproperlyrejectedMarks'readingof `  theletter.Itdidnotclearlyerrinconcludingthattheonly   reliefMarkshadsought,priortoitsmotionforreconsideration, h wasarbitrationbeforethe_PCA_ԀundertheAmericanArbitrationAct's d InternationalRules.Nordidthecourterrinfindingthat_that_  reliefwasunavailable,orindismissingthepetitiononthat l ground.Therewassimplynobasis,giventhe_PCA_'sletter,forthe h districtcourttoorderarbitrationbeforethe_PCA_Ԁunderanysetof  rulesotherthanthe_UNCITRAL_ԀArbitrationRules.Markshasnever p  suggestedthe_PCA_Ԁwasapartyorthatthecourtcouldorderthe_PCA_ !l" todothatwhichitalreadysaidithadnoauthoritytodo. "$  ` Thedistrictcourtframedthequestionasoneof t$& _mootness_._Mootness_Ԁdoctrine,intheArticleIIIcaseor  &p!( controversysense,maybeanimprecisefittothesituationhere, '#* butcapturestheideathatcourtsdonotconsiderabstractissues. x)$, "[_M]ootness_Ԁdoctrineisrootedlargelyintheideathatcourts, $+t&. becauseoftheirdistinctinstitutionalcompetenceandrole,should  notdecideabstractquestionsoflawdivorcedfromrealfactual \ controversies."HorizonBank&TrustCo.v.Massachusetts,391 X F.3d48,55(1stCir.2004).Itissufficienttosimplyframethe   questionaswhetherthedistrictcourtcouldhaveaffordedthe `  reliefforwhichMarkshadasked.SeeChurchof_Scientology_v.  \  UnitedStates,506U.S.9,12(1992)("[_I]f_Ԁ...it[is]   impossibleforthecourttogrant'anyeffectualreliefwhatever' d  toaprevailingparty,theappealmustbedismissed."(quoting `  Millsv.Green,159U.S.651,653(1895)));seealsoRaytheonCo.   v._Ashborn_ԀAgencies,Ltd.,372F.3d451(D.C.Cir.2004) h (dismissingpetitiontocompelarbitrationwheretherewasno d ArticleIIIstanding,inpart,becausetherequestedreliefwould  notalleviatetheclaimedinjuryinfact). l  ` 2.Marks'RequestforaHearing h  ` Marksarguesthatithadrequestedahearinginits  petitiontocompelarbitration,andthatthecourtwasobligated, p  asaninitialmatter,toholdahearingoncethepetitionwas !l" filed.Itrelieson,9U.S.C.4,whichprovides: "$ ` ` Thecourtshallheartheparties,andupon t$& beingsatisfiedthatthemakingofthe J% ' agreementforarbitrationorthefailureto  &p!( complytherewithisnotinissue,thecourt &F") shallmakeanorderdirectingthepartiesto '#* proceedtoarbitrationinaccordancewiththe (#+ termsoftheagreement....Ifthemakingof x)$, thearbitrationagreementorthefailure, N*%-  neglect,orrefusaltoperformthesamebein $+t&. issue,thecourtshallproceedsummarilyto  thetrialthereof.   ` `  ` Theargumentisbasedontheunwarrantedassumptionthat 2 Marks'petitionhadsoughtreliefwhichthedistrictcourtcould . provide.    ` Moreover,eveninitsownterms,theargumentis 6   unpersuasive.Initially,itisnotclearthatunder9U.S.C.4,  2  anevidentiaryhearingisrequired.Markshasassumedthatthe   "shallheartheparties"statementin9U.S.C.4referstoalive :  evidentiaryhearing.Thatmaynotbeso.Rather,a"hearing"on 6 thepapersmaybeallthatisrequired.SeeCincinnatiGas&Elec.  Co.v.BenjaminF.ShawCo.,706F.2d155,159(6thCir.1983);cf. > UnitedStatesv.Fla.E.CoastRy.Co.,410U.S.224,240(1973) : (holding,undertheAdministrativeProcedureAct,that"theterm  'hearing'asusedthereindoesnotnecessarilyembraceeitherthe B righttopresentevidenceorallyandtocross-examineopposing > witnesses,ortherighttopresentoralargumenttotheagency's  _decisionmaker_"). F !  ` ButevenindulgingMarks'assumptionthat9U.S.C.4is !B# satisfiedonlybyanevidentiaryhearing,suchahearingis #% requiredonlyifthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactfor J% ' whichahearingwouldbenecessary.SeeAm._Int'l_ԀSpecialtyLines &F") Ins.Co.v.Elec.Data_Sys_.Corp.,347F.3d665,671(7thCir. (#+ 2003)("Atrialtodetermine_arbitrability_Ԁisrequired,however, N*%- onlyiftheissuethatanevidentiaryhearingwouldresolveis +J'/ fairlycontestable.");CincinnatiGas&Elec.Co.,706F.2dat159;  cf._Mowbray_v._Moseley_,_Hallgarten_,_Estabrook_Ԁ&_Weeden_,Inc.,795 \ F.2d1111,1115n.7(1stCir.1986)(decidingwhetheranagreement X toarbitrateexistedunder9U.S.C.4wheretherehadbeen"no   requestforanevidentiaryhearingandnodisputeregardingthe `  movingparty'sfactualallegations").Requiringthedistrictcourt  \  toholdahearingwhenthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact   would"defeat[]anessentialgoalofarbitration,whichisthe d  simplificationandexpeditionofdisputeresolution."Am._Int'l_ `  SpecialtyLines,347F.3dat671.    ` Here,therewasnogenuineissueregarding"themakingof h theagreementforarbitration"or"thefailuretocomply d therewith."Theissueconcernedtheinabilityofthedistrict  courttograntthereliefMarksstateditwasseeking l arbitrationatthe_PCA_ԀundertheAmericanArbitrationAct's h InternationalRulesbecausetherequestedreliefwouldnot  resolvethedispute. p  B. ` ArgumentsinMotionforReconsiderationSeeking !l"  ` ArbitrationataDifferentForum !B#  ` Evenafterthedistrictcourtmadeclear,initsAugust #% 9order,itsconcernsaboutitsinabilitytogranttherelief J% ' sought,MarksdidnothinginitsfilingspriortotheSeptember20 &F") ordertodemonstratethatitwasseekingreliefthatthedistrict (#+  courtcouldgrant. N*%-  ` Instead,Markswaiteduntilafterthedistrictcourthad   ruledagainstitonSeptember20,andthenattemptedtoalter \ courseinitsmotionforreconsideration,fromseekingarbitration X atthe_PCA_ԀundertheAmericanArbitrationAct'sInternational   Rules,toseekingarbitrationatsomeotherforumorundersome `  othersetofarbitrationrules,andrequestingahearingtosort  \  outthepossibilities.Markssaysthisisacceptablebecauseits   petitionsaidintheprayerforreliefthatitwasseeking"such d  otherandfurtherreliefastheCourtdeemsappropriateandjust." `  Notso.ThatdoesnotexplainwhyMarksdidnotmaketheargument   afterthecourtfirstraiseditsconcerns.Inanyevent,the h catchallprovision,standingalone,doesnotgivenoticethat d Marks'theorywasdifferentthanthatarticulatedintherestof  thecomplaint.Atrialcourtisnotrequiredtoguesswhatrelief l apartywantsorwhyitwantsit. h  ` Thesenewargumentsweremadeclearforthefirsttimein  themotionforreconsideration,andthe"generalrule"formotions p  forreconsiderationunderFed.R.Civ.P.59(e)"isthatthemoving !l" partymust'eitherclearlyestablishamanifesterroroflawor "$ mustpresentnewlydiscoveredevidence.'"Mariev.AlliedHome t$& MortgageCorp.,402F.3d1,7n.2(1stCir.2005)(quoting  &p!( _Pomerleau_v.W.SpringfieldPub.Sch.,362F.3d143,146n.2(1st '#* Cir.2004)).Amotionforreconsideration"doesnotprovidea x)$, vehicleforapartytoundoitsownproceduralfailuresandit $+t&. certainlydoesnotallowapartytointroducenewevidenceor  advanceargumentsthatcouldandshouldhavebeenpresentedtothe \ districtcourtpriortothejudgment."SeeEmmanuelv._Int'l_ԀBhd. X ofTeamsters,LocalUnionNo.25,426F.3d416,422(1stCir.2005)   (internalquotationmarksomitted)(quoting_Aybar_,118F.3dat16). `   ` Underthisgeneralrule,Marks'attempttochangecourse  \  fails;thenewargumentsMarksraisedinitsmotionfor   reconsiderationcouldhaveeasilybeenpresentedtothedistrict d  courtpriortoitsSeptember20,2005orderdismissingthe `  petition,butwerenot.See_Cozza_v.Network_Assocs_.,Inc.,362   F.3d12,16(1stCir.2004)(holdingthatpartycouldnotbringa h successiveinterlocutoryappealofadenialofamotiontocompel d arbitration"baseduponthesamearguments...itcouldhave  appealedearlier,butdidnot"). l  ` Markspointstothegeneralfederalpolicyinfavorof h arbitration,theFAA,andtheNewYorkConvention. Itarguesthat  thedistrictcourtwasrequiredtooverlookthefailingsofMarks' p  petitionandnonethelesstrytofindadifferentforumandpossibly !l" differentrulesforthearbitration,andtoholdanevidentiary "$ hearingunder9U.S.C.4inordertodoso.Inessence,Marks t$& arguesthatthepoliciesinfavorofarbitrationaresostrongthat  &p!( theytrumpthenormaloperationoftheFederalRulesofCivil '#*  Procedure.Thatisnot_so.___ x)$,  ` MarksreliesonChapterOneoftheFAA,9U.S.C.4,   quotedabove. Marksarguesthatunderthisprovision,thecourt \ wasrequiredtoholdahearingoratrialtodeterminewhichagency X shouldpresideandpursuanttowhatrules. Thisargumentwasfirst   madeclearinthemotionforreconsideration,andfailsunderthe |  generalrulethatargumentsthatcouldhavebeenraisedbeforemay ( x  notberaisedforthefirsttimeinamotionforreconsideration. $  Markshasprovidednoauthoritythat9U.S.C.4,oranyother   provisionoftheFAA,createsanexceptiontothisgeneralrule. ,|   ` MarksalsoreliesontheNewYorkConvention. Itpoints ( tocaseswhichsetoutafourparttestfordeterminingwhetheran  internationalarbitrationagreementcanbeenforcedbyafederal 0 courtundertheNewYorkConvention.See_DiMercurio_v.Sphere , DrakeIns.,PLC,202F.3d71,74&n.2(1stCir.2000);_Ledee_,684  F.2dat18687. Marksarguesthattheagreementheremeetsthis 4 fourparttestandthat,therefore,thecourtmustorder 0 arbitrationunlessthereisafindingthatthearbitration   provisionis"nullandvoid,inoperativeorincapableofbeing 8!" performed."_DiMercurio_,202F.3dat74(quotingNewYork "4$ Convention,supra,art.II,3);seealso_Intergen_ԀN.V.,344F.3d $& at141.Theargumentisanonsequitur:thefourparttestisused <&!(  todeterminewhetheraparticulararbitrationagreementfallsunder '8#* thetermsoftheNewYorkConvention._ #  4      _ԀTheissuehereisnot   whethertheagreementfallsundertheConvention,butwhetherthe \ reliefinitiallyrequestedbyMarkswasavailable,andwhether X Marks'attempttochangeitspositiononamotionfor   reconsiderationshouldbeallowed,despitethenormalrulesof `  litigation.TheNewYorkConventionandcasesapplyingthe  \  Conventiondonotanswerthatquestion.    ` Inalastditchefforttosaveitselffromdismissal, d  Marksturnstothebroadfederalpolicyinfavorofarbitration, `  seeMosesH.Cone_Mem'l_ԀHosp.v.MercuryConstr.Co.,460U.S.1,   2425(1983),tosupportitsargumentthatitshouldbealloweda h hearingtosortouttheappropriateforumandrulesforthe d arbitration. TheSupremeCourthasnotedthatthepolicyfavoring  arbitration"applieswithspecialforceinthefieldof  internationalcommerce."SeeRestorationPres.MasonryInc.v. 4 GroveEur.Ltd.,325F.3d54,60(1stCir.2003)(internal 0 quotationmarksomitted)(quotingMitsubishiMotorsCorp.v._Soler_    ChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,473U.S.614,631(1985)). 8!"  ` Butthebroadpolicyfavoringarbitrationeveninthe   contextofinternationalarbitrationdoesnotcreatean \ exceptiontothegeneralrulethatamotiontoreconsiderdoesnot X allowaparty"tointroducenewevidenceoradvanceargumentsthat   couldandshouldhavebeenpresentedtothedistrictcourtpriorto `  thejudgment."_Aybar_,118F.3dat16.ThegoaloftheFAAwas"to  \  makearbitrationagreementsasenforceableasothercontracts,but   notmoreso."PaulRevereVariableAnnuityIns.Co.v. d  _Kirschhofer_,226F.3d15,25(1stCir.2000)(internalquotation `  marksomitted)(quotingPrimaPaintCorp.v.Flood&_Conklin_ԀMfg.   Co.,388U.S.395,404n.12(1967));seealsoVoltInfo._Scis_., h Inc.v.Bd.of_Trs_.ofLelandStanfordJuniorUniv.,489U.S.468, d 478(1989)("[TheFAA]simplyrequirescourtstoenforceprivately  negotiatedagreementstoarbitrate,likeothercontracts,in l accordancewiththeirterms.")."Itfollowsinexorablyfromthat h statementthattheprincipleofresolvingdoubtsinfavorof  arbitrationis'subjecttoconstraints.'"PaulRevere,226F.3dat p  15(quoting_Coady_v._Ashcraft_Ԁ&_Gerel_,223F.3d1,9(1stCir. !l" 2000));seealsoRestorationPres.Masonry,325F.3dat60("The "$ policyinfavorofarbitrationdoesnotsupersedebasiccontract t$& principles,however.").  &p!(  ` Indeed,thereasonsuponwhichthefederalpolicies '#* regardinginternationalarbitrationarebasedtendtoworkagainst x)$, Marks'position: $+t&. ` ` Arbitrationclauseswerenotmeanttobe  anotherweaponinthearsenalforimposing  delayandcostsinthedisputeresolution \ process....Inthecontextof 2 internationalcontracts,theopportunitiesfor X increasingthecost,time,andcomplexityof . resolvingdisputesaremagnifiedbythe   presenceofmultiplepossiblefora,eachwith   itsowndifferentsubstantiverules, `  procedural_schematas_,andlegalcultures. 6   Thisisfertilegroundformanipulationand  \  mischief,andacceptanceof[plaintiff's]  2  argumentswouldleadtotheveryproblemsthe   [NewYork]Conventionsoughttoavoid.   ` ` MenorahIns.Co.v._INX_ԀReinsuranceCorp.,72F.3d218,223(1st :  Cir.1995);seeid.at222("[_U]ltimately_,thestrongpolicy 6 reasonsfavoringarbitrationandunderlyingtheadoptionofthe  Conventionwouldbeundercut,notserved,byacceptanceof > [plaintiff's]position.");seealsoWeinerv.Gutfreund(Inre : SalomonInc.Shareholders'DerivativeLitigation),68F.3d554,  55758(2dCir.1995)("Althoughthefederalpolicyfavoring B arbitrationobligesustoresolveanydoubtsinfavorof > arbitration,wecannotcompelapartytoarbitrateadisputebefore  someoneotherthantheNYSEwhenthatpartyhadagreedtoarbitrate F ! disputesonlybeforetheNYSEandtheNYSE,inturn,exercisingits !B# discretionunderitsConstitution,hasrefusedtheuseofits #% facilitiestoarbitratethedisputeinquestion."). J% '  ` Marksmadeastrategicchoice(andcontinuedtomakethe &F") strategicchoice)torelyonitsreadingofthe_PCA_Ԁletterandseek (#+ arbitrationatthe_PCA_ԀundertheAmericanArbitrationAct's(or N*%- Association's)InternationalRules,anditmustlivewiththe +J'/ consequencesofthatchoice.SeePaulRevereVariableAnnuityIns.  Co.v._Zang_,248F.3d1,6(1stCir.2001)("Whereapartymakesa \ consideredchoice,thoughitmayinvolvesomecalculatedrisk,he X 'cannotberelievedofsuchachoicebecausehindsightseemsto   indicatetohim'that,asitturnsout,hisdecisionwas'probably `  wrong.'"(quoting_Ackermann_v.UnitedStates,340U.S.193,198  \  (1950))). ` HadMarkschosenadifferentstrategy,adifferent   outcomemayhavebeenwarranted.ButtoallowMarkstoavoidthe d  consequencesofitsstrategicdecisionwouldleadtodelayand `  manipulation.     III. h  ` Thedistrictcourt'sdismissalofthepetitiontocompel d arbitrationisaffirmed.Costsareawardedtothedefendant.    Concurrencefollows.  h  ` YOUNG,DistrictJudge,(Concurring). Thisseemstomean  importantdecision.Ijoinitsreasoningandresult,writing x separatelysimplytopointoutthattheresultisimposedona $t recordsomewhatmoreambiguousthanthemajorityletson.Marks   petitionedforanorder"_direct[ing_]thatarbitrationproceedin |  themannersetforthintheAgreement:inTheHague,andthatthe ( x  CourtordersucharbitrationtoproceedundertheAmerican $  ArbitrationAct'sInternationalRules."App.at15.Sincethere   ismorethanonearbitralbodyinTheHague--afactthemajority ,|  doesrecognize,seesupraat9--itistoomuchofastretchfor ( themajoritytosay"Markssoughtanordertocompelarbitrationof  thedisputebeforethe_PCA_Ԁ...."Supraat3(emphasisadded); 0 seealsosupraat18.Indeed,Markshadarguedinitsmemorandum , addressingthedistrictcourt'smootnessconcernsthatarbitration  couldbeproper"atanotherarbitralbody". 4  ` Contrarytothemajority'sdescription,itwasthe 0 districtjudgewhodrewthisinferencefromMarks'svaguepleading,   whichitselfdidnotexpresslyrequesttheneededinterpretationof 8!" theambiguousarbitrationclause.Nevertheless,sincethedistrict "4$ court'sconclusionwaswarrantedbasedtheentiretyoftherecord $& andfilings,andbecauseIwouldaffirmtheordersofthedistrict <&!( courtbasedthereon(evenintheabsenceofanyoralhearing),I '8#* concur.