WPC/- !clSdCjMg1/sC)O!cl(PT1h0F:š *>ĵs=³wUN$-m91={vOb{˻B{/\O T } {X`o3zǴ,NLb<| N5<=eć~M 6Lo0П9.-`w]0ӯhU᜺WhH޶y|>Xw0J)f_̐ g4se/ n/]p>,D"KH(Fyi:U>,j 0<  0<F 00 0UF 0< 0 <" 0 ^ UFO U6  D 0'U .U> "H-jUJ"""%"G Bi 0C""""3"U"w""!b!"%o%%"("( 0( B+)* 0 *#*U Np, %,M,(,N,^ ,w,4-- m-\  `&Times New Roman' PATUXENT TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, * Training(0MD Court System .   <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref0 .Footer:^V8Page Number[.\  `.Times New Roman TUR[ S\  `&Times New RomanS .\  `.Times New Roman TUR<:Footnote Re1< :Footnote Tex8 6Block TextXXX[ 7\  `.Times New Roman TUR[   >4F N V^f!(#%>   e[X` hp x (#eS\  `&Times New RomanS 7\  `.Times New Roman TUR<6X9`(Courier New  : >o)..      0lX0Xl0l  XXl XXXX3 p x (#X3 6X Xl 6* #X*ll   XXl XXXXXXX X   XlXXXXXXXlH.` hp x (# #HlXXlXllXl(2>o$ .!..      0lX0Xl0l  <6X9`(Courier\  `&Times New Roman      ##  Xd#ѳkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols                     d($      .!..      0lX0Xl0l  B.` hp x (#XB        lXl  1   .   6XlUndertheFAA,z2  6A 6 z2commercez2  6@ 6 z2Ԁmeansz2  6A 6 z2commerceamongtheseveralStatesorwith  foreignnations,orinanyTerritoryoftheUnitedStatesorintheDistrict x ofColumbia,orbetweenanysuchTerritoryandanother,orbetweenanysuch 4 TerritoryandanyStateorforeignnation,orbetweentheDistrictofColumbia @ andanyStateorTerritoryorforeignnation...z2  6@ 6 z2Ԁ9U.S.C.z2  6' 6 z21.lX 6lXl       .!..      0lX0Xl0l  B.` hp x (#XB          lXl  2  .   6XlTotheextentthattheunavailabilityoffederalcourtjurisdictionwouldlimit  enforcement,thisCourtcouldutilizetheMarylandArbitrationAct,Courtsand x JudicialProceedingsArticlez2  6'' 6 z23201etseq.,theFAAz2  6= 6 z2sStateanalogue,to 4 addressenforcementconcerns.SeeHolmesv.CoverallN.Am.,Inc.,336Md.534 @ (1994).lX 6lXl                                .!..      0lX0Xl0l  E1` hp x (#XE        lXl  3   .   6XlTheFourthCircuitisnottheonlyonetoreadarbitrationclausesas  broadlyandexpansivelyasthelanguageoftheagreementmayreasonablyallow. x Forexample,AceCapitalReOverseasLtd.v.CentralUnitedLifeInsurance 4 Co.,307F.3d24(2ndCir.2002)demonstratesthemoderntrendfollowingthe @ SupremeCourtz2  6= 6 z2sendorsementoftheFederalArbitrationActtohavearbitration  clausesreachclaims,suchasfraudintheinducment,thatwerepreviously h consideredtobecollateraloroutsidethescopeofarbitrationclauses.lX 6lXl      X .!..      0lX0Xl0l  B.` hp x (#XB        lXl  4   .   6hlInfact,PlaintiffconcedesinitsMemorandumofLawthattheallegedoral  agreementwassilentastothemethodofdisputeresolution.Plaintiffz2  6= 6 z2s l ResponsetoDefendantVerizonz2  6= 6 z2sMotiontoDismiss,Page3.lX 6lXl      e .!..      0lX0Xl0l  E1` hp x (#XE        lXl  5   .   6XlInlightofthisCourtz2  6= 6 z2srulingdismissingallclaimsbecauseofthe  operationofthearbitrationclause,itisnotnecessaryfortheCourttorule x onVerizonz2  6= 6 z2sotherargumentsfordismissaloftheclaimsagainstit.lX 6lXl          (2$ .!..      0lX0Xl0l  Xl  0  'Single1  d#|x(r$..      0lX0Xl0lHP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular0X.0 h.PrinteU .!..      0lX0Xl0l  _         XXl XXXXPATUXENTTECHNOLOGYPARTNERS,*   p INTHE  LLC   Plaintiff   h   *   p CIRCUITCOURT v  vs.  *   p FOR < Ѐ  o VERIZONNETWORKINTEGRATION  *   p HOWARDCOUNTY  R CORP.,ETAL.  5  Ӏ*   p CaseNo.13C0354350    Defendants     B.` hp x (#XBӀ*     ********* q  3 p x (#X3Q<< MEMORANDUMANDORDER 7  Introduction M    X H.` hp x (#XHPatuxentTechnologyPartners,LLC(XXX XA XXXXPTPXXX X@ XXXX)filedits  ComplaintonOctober1,2002,intheCircuitCourtforBaltimore  CountyagainstVerizonNetworkIntegrationCorporation O (XXX XA XXXXVerizonXXX X@ XXXX)andeightotherDefendants.FromApril25,2000, e untilApril24,2002,PTPandVerizonhadawrittenagreementfor + PTPtoperformtechnologyservicesforVerizon.PTPassertsthat  theVerizonProgramManagerassignedtothisproject,Armando g Seay,wasalsoadirector,shareholder,officer,andemployeeof - } theRossTechnologyGroup,Inc.(XXX XA XXXXRTGXXXX X@ XXXX),acompanywhich !C! representsitselfasaleaderinprovidingtechnicalsolutions # # forbusinesses.PTPallegesthatitsownformerdirectorof % % ProfessionalServices,KatherineAdamsSeay(whoismarriedto E'"' Mr.SeayofVerizon)leftPTPandwenttoworkforRTGX.The  )[$) otherDefendantsareindividualswho,accordingtotheComplaint, *!&+ workedforPTPontheVerizoncontractandthensubsequentlywent ,'-       8  XXdd8   toworkforRTGX.Eventually,RTGXbegantodomuchofthework  thatPTPhadpreviouslydoneaswellasVerizonworkthatPTP v expectedtodointhefuture.Unhappywiththedefectionsand < lossofexpectedbusiness,PTPfiledthislawsuitagainst  R Verizon,RTGX,Seay,AdamsSeay,andtheotherindividuals.   Verizonfiledamotiontodismiss,assertingthatallthe    claimsagainstitmustbedismissedundereitherMarylandRule2 T  322(b)(1)or(2)becauseallclaimsagainstitaresubjectto j  arbitrationor,inthealternative,arenotactionableasa 0 matteroflaw.Thepartieshaveextensivelybriefedtheissues,  andafterthiscasewastransferredtothisCounty,ahearingon l themotionwasheldbeforetheCourt.ThisMemorandumandOrder 2 constitutestheCourtXXX X= XXXXsruling. H   XStatementofFacts   XThiscasearisesoutofPTPXXX X= XXXXsrelationshipasaconsultant  toVerizon.ThatrelationshipbeginswiththeConsulting J AgreemententeredintobetweenVerizonandPTPonApril25,2000, !`  whichwasextendedandrenewedthroughApril24,2002. "&" (Complaint,XXX X&& XXXX34,35.SeealsoConsultingAgreement,XXX X& XXXX27, $$ attachedasExhibit1toDefendantXXX X= XXXXsoriginalMemorandumofLaw.) b&!& ThisagreementpermittedPTPtoactasanindependentcontractor ((x#( consultantforVerizon(formerlyBellAtlanticNetwork )>%* Integration,Inc.)toperformservicesandprovidematerialsto +',     VerizonortheirexistingcustomersuponauthorizationbyVerizon  bywayofawrittenPurchaseOrderaccompaniedbyanassociated v StatementofWork.PTPdescribesitselfasXXX XA XXXXaleaderin < developingsophisticatedintegratedinformationtechnology  R systemswhichutilizeswirelesssolutions,systemsengineering,   webengineering,softwareengineeringandsystemsintegrationXXX X@ XXXX.    (Complaint,XXX X& XXXX15)Verizonwasfreetouseotherindependent T  contractorsforsuchworkatitselection. j  PTPallegesthatinthesummerof2000,Verizon,throughits 0 formerProgramManagerArmandoSeay,enteredintoasubsequent  agreementwithPTP,referredtobyPTPastheXXX XA XXXXSubcontractor l AgreementXXX X@ XXXX,thatwasXXX XA XXXXinadditionto,andnotinconsistentwith, 2 theConsultingAgreementXXX X@ XXXX.(Complaint,XXX X&& XXXX36,37)PTPdoesnot H allegethattheSubcontractorAgreementwasawritteninstrument.  Plaintiffcharacterizesitasanoralagreement,andPlaintiff  referstoitinitsbriefastheXXX XA XXXXOralSubcontractorAgreementof J June2000XXX X@ XXXX. !`  TheSubcontractorAgreementisallegedtobeanexclusive "&" oralcontractforservices.Morespecifically,PTPagreedto $$ assistVerizonindevelopingandpresentingdemonstrationsand b&!& proposalstoprospectiveVerizoncustomersinMaryland.In ((x#( considerationofPTPXXX X= XXXXsservices,PlaintiffallegesVerizon )>%* expresslyagreedtoengagePTPasasubcontractoronall +', contractsarisingfromPTPXXX X= XXXXsservicesundertheoriginal  agreement.Onceawardedthecontract,however,Plaintiffasserts v thatVerizonfailedtoperformitsdutiesundertheOral < Agreementandbreachedthatagreement.  R TheoriginalConsultingAgreementcontainsadispute   resolutionprovision.SeeConsultingAgreement,XXX X& XXXX26.It    providesforaninitialinternaldisputeresolutionprocedure T  followedbybindingarbitrationpursuanttotheConstruction j  IndustryArbitrationRulesoftheAmericanArbitration 0 Associationiftheprincipalsofbothpartiesareunabletoreach  aresolution.Arbitrationiscompulsoryfor: l  X  9%` ` hp xX9[a]lldisputes,claimsofeitherparty 2 hereto,allquestionsconcerning e interpretationorclarificationofthe H Agreementortheacceptablefulfillmentof + theAgreementonthepartofeitherparty,  andallquestionsastocompensationandto  extensionoftime...Thearbitrationshall  beheldinPhiladelphia,Pennsylvaniaunless g otherwiseagreedbytheparties,andshallbe J finalandbindingonthemboth.Judgmentmay - } beenteredonanyawardbyanycourtof !`  competentjurisdiction.ThepartiesXXX X= XXXX !C! agreementtoarbitrateshallbegovernedby "&" theUnitedStatesArbitrationAct,9U.S.C. # # XXX X'' XXXX115,notwithstandinganyprovisiontothe $$ contrary. % %  ?+` ` hp x (#` X? ?+  hp x (#` X?(emphasisadded) E'"'  XWithoutinvokingthearbitrationclause,PTPbroughtthis  )[$) actionandalleges13contractandtortclaimsagainstVerizon. *!&+       PTPclaimsthatpursuanttotheallegedXXX XA XXXXSubcontractor  AgreementXXX X@ XXXX,SeayXXX XA XXXXspecificallyandexpresslypromisedtoengage v PTPasasubcontractoronallprospectivecontractsawardedto < Verizon,forwhichPTPhadassisteditindevelopingitsbusiness  R planandproposalXXX X@ XXXX.(Complaint,XXX X& XXXX37,5258)PTPallegesthat   VerizonacceptedconsultingservicesfromPTPonanumberof    contracts,butlaterterminatedPTPassubcontractoronthose T  contractsandengagedDefendantTheRossTechnologicalGroup, j  Inc.(XXX XA XXXXRTGXXXX X@ XXXX)initsplace.(Complaint,XXX X&& XXXX5458,Counts812) 0 InadditiontoitsclaimsforbreachoftheXXX XA XXXXSubcontractor  AgreementXXX X@ XXXXԀ(Counts812),PTPattemptstoattributealleged l tortiousconductbySeaytoVerizonasabasisforclaimsagainst 2 Verizonofdefamation(Count7),misrepresentation(Counts41, H 42,45,46),conspiracy(Count54),andaidingandabetting  (Counts57,58).TheallegationsregardingtheConsulting  AgreementandtheallegedXXX XA XXXXSubcontractorAgreementXXX X@ XXXXԀunderlieall J ofPTPXXX X= XXXXstortclaims.(ComplaintXXX X&& XXXX102103,306307,311,316, !`  335337,339,343344,346349,407,430,437) "&"   $X B( hp x (# XBDiscussion $$  X$ E.` hp x (#  XEPlaintifffirstarguesthatasathresholdmatter,the b&!& FederalArbitrationAct(XXX XA XXXXFAAXXX X@ XXXX)9U.S.C.XXX X'' XXXX116,cannotapplyto ((x#( thefactualsituationallegedintheComplaintbecauseunderthe )>%* Act,theremustbebothaXXX XA XXXXwrittenagreementXXX X@ XXXXԀtoarbitrateand +', thetransactionmustinvolveXXX XA XXXXcommerceXXX X@ XXXX.Loprestiv.Electro  Films,Inc.,1992WL309634at*3(E.D.Pa.Oct.20,1992). v PlaintiffassertsthatgiventheplainlanguageoftheAct,the < contractproperlybeforetheCourt,theoralsubcontractor  R agreement,doesnotsatisfyeitheroftheserequirements.   Defendantisnot,however,relyingonthesocalledoral    contractallegedintheComplainttoinvoketheFAA.Defendant T  reliesinsteadontheoriginalconsultingagreement,whichis j  XXX XA XXXXwrittenXXX X@ XXXX.Inthatagreement,PlaintiffandDefendantwithout 0 anydoubtagreedtohavearbitrationundertheFAA.Thereachof  thatagreementiswhatisinquestion,butthereisnodoubtthat l bothpartieswereagreeingtouseFAAprocedures.Wherethey 2 disagreeiswhethertheFAAprovisionflowsthroughtothefacts H allegedintheComplaint.   l<` Plaintiffalsosuggeststhatsomehowthefactualscenario  allegeddoesnotevidencesufficientXXX XA XXXXcommerceXXX X@ XXXXԀsothattheFAA J canbeinvoked.     1     S=awa  Plaintiffassertsthatthefactualallegations !`  donotincludeatransactioninvolvingcommercebecauseall "&" contactbetweenpartiesrelevanttotheagreementoccurredin $$ Maryland. b&!&     Theshortanswertothisisthatundertheoriginal  agreement,bothpartiesagreedtoutilizetheFAA,andthereis v nosuggestionherethatPlaintiffdidnotsoagree.Having < agreedtodoso,thePlaintiffcannotnowbeheardtosuggest  R thatactivityotherwisefallingwithinthescopeofthewritten   agreementmayinretrospectnothavesufficientattributesof    XXX XA XXXXcommerceXXX X@ XXXXԀtoallowFAAprocedurestobeused. T  TherecertainlyshouldbenocauseforthisCourttoinany j  wayconcludethatitcannotenforcetheprovision,atleastin 0 thedefensivewayitisnowbeingassertedbyDefendant.  SouthlandCorp.v.Keating,465U.S.1(1984)(FAAcanbe l enforcedbystatecourtactions).Indeed,inmanysituations, 2 statecourtenforcementmaybetheonlyavenueavailable. H Federalcourtsarecourtsoflimitedjurisdiction,andparties  seekingtoinvoketheirjurisdictionmustassertabasisforsuch  jurisdiction.Thus,insuchacase,theabsenceofsufficient J XXX XA XXXXcommerceXXX X@ XXXXԀbeingshownunderSection1oftheFAAmaypreventa !`  federalcourtfromestablishingtherequisitepreconditioneven "&" whereanindependentbasisofjurisdictionexists,suchas $$ federalquestionordiversityjurisdiction.JDC(America)Corp. b&!& v.AmerifirstFloridaTrustCo.,736F.Supp.1121(S.D.Fla. ((x#( 1990). )>%* However,Marylandcircuitcourtsarecourtsofgeneral +',     jurisdictionthatdonotrequirespecificgrantsofstatutory  jurisdictioninordertohavesubjectmatterjurisdictionovera v dispute.CourtsandJudicialProceedingsArticleXXX X' XXXX1501.Thus, < evenintheabsenceoftherequisiteXXX XA XXXXcommerceXXX X@ XXXXԀnecessaryto  R establishfederalcourtjurisdiction,thisCourtcouldenforce   thepartiesXXX X= XXXXԀwrittenagreementtoutilizetheFAAproceduresto    arbitratetheirdisputes.ThisCourtcanenforcethewritten T  agreementmadebytheparties,includingtheprovisiontoemploy j  FAAprocedures.     2     dKPlai  󀀀 0   XXX X XXX X  H4F N V^f!(#%XH     K.` hp x (#FX(#%K 'L   XXX X Thecorequestionhereiswhethersomeoralltheclaims  raisedbyPlaintiffareevencoveredbythearbitrationclauseof l thewrittenagreement.Therearetwoopposingviews.Defendant 2 seesallofPlaintiffXXX X= XXXXsclaimsarisingoutofandgerminating H fromthewrittenagreement,andthusinitsview,theclaimsare  clearlyXXX XA XXXXdisputesXXX X@ XXXXԀwithinthescopeofthearbitrationagreement  thatariseinacontinuousorganicstreamfromthepartiesXXX X= XXXX J relationshipbegunbythewrittenagreement. 'LZM݌ !`  Ќ   XX XXX X XXX X    Plaintifftakesanotherapproachandcontendsthatthe "&" writtenagreementhasdiscreteboundariesandthattheclaimsit $$ raisesintheComplaintareonesoutsidethoseboundariesand b&!&      foundedonanotherdiscontinuousoralcontractthat,while  betweenthesameparties,isnotaffectedorinanywaygoverned v bythetermsoftheoriginalwrittenagreement. < ThisCourtmustdecidewhichviewiscorrectunderthe  R applicablelaw.   Whetherapartyhasagreedtoarbitrateanissueisamatter    ofcontractinterpretation.Apartycanonlyberequiredto T  submittoarbitrationdisputeswhichhehasagreedtoarbitrate. j  UnitedSteelworkersofAmericav.Warrior&GulfNavigationCo., 0 363U.S.574,582(1960).Butinconsideringmatterswherethe  partieshaveinvokedintheiragreementtheFAA,theU.S. l SupremeCourthasindicatedits(andbyimplication,any 2 construingcourtXXX X= XXXXs)XXX XA XXXXhealthyregardforthefederalpolicy H favoringarbitrationXXX X@ XXXX.ItfurtherexplainedthattheAct   X  6"` ` hp xX6establishesthat,asamatteroffederallaw,  anydoubtsconcerningthescopeofarbitrable g issuesshouldberesolvedinfavorof J arbitration,whethertheproblemathandis - } theconstructionofthecontractlanguage !`  itselforanallegationofwaiver,delay,or !C! alikedefensetoarbitrability. "&"   B.` hp x (#` ` XBMosesH.ConeMemorialHosp.v.MercuryConstr.Co.,460U.S.1, $$ 2425(1983). b&!&  XWhilenopartythatdidnotagreeinadvancetoarbitrate ((x#( itsdisputesshouldbedeniedajudicialforum,thereisinthe )>%* contextofconstruingcontractsinvokingtheFAA,aXXX XA XXXXheavy +',      presumptionofarbitrabilityXXX X@ XXXXԀwhichXXX XA XXXXrequiresthatwhenthescope  ofthearbitrationclauseisopentoquestion,acourtmust v decidethequestioninfavorofarbitration.XXX X@ XXXXԀPeoplesSec.Life < Ins.Co.v.MonumentalLifeIns.Co.,867F.2d809,812(4th  R Cir.1989);AmericanRecoveryCorp.v.ComputerizedThermal   Imaging,Inc.,96F.3d88,92(4thCir.1996).Indeed,this    heavypresumptiontiltstheanalysissothatapartyXXX X= XXXXsrequestto T  arbitrateanissueshouldnotbedeniedXXX XA XXXXunlessitmaybesaid j  withpositiveassurancethatthearbitrationclauseisnot 0 susceptibleofaninterpretationthatcoverstheasserted  dispute.XXX X@ XXXXԀUnitedSteelworkersofAmericav.Warrior&Gulf, l supra,363U.S.at58283;Longv.Silver,248F.3d309,316(4th 2 Cir.2001);BeckerAutoradioU.S.A.Inc.v.BeckerAutoradiowerk H GmbH,585F.2d39,44(3rdCir.1978).   Againstthisbackground,theCourtmustlooktothe  ConsultingAgreementwhereitisundisputedthattheparties J initiallysetforthanagreementtoarbitrateundertheFAA,but !`  wherethereisadisagreementaboutthescopeoftheagreement. "&" Paragraph26oftheConsultingAgreementstatesthatthe $$ followingwillbesubjecttoarbitration(aswellasthe b&!& preliminarydisputeresolutionprocedures): ((x#(  X  6"` ` hp xX6Alldisputes,claimsofeitherpartyhereto, )>%* allquestionsconcerninginterpretationor *!&+ clarificationoftheAgreementorthe +',        acceptablefulfillmentoftheAgreementon  thepartofeitherparty,andallquestions  astocompensationandtoextensionof v time... Y   XXX X XXX X  H4F N V^f!(#%` ` XH     K.` hp x (#FX(#%K Gg   XXX X  Ggzh݌̌   ` ` XX XXX X XXX X    XXX X XXX X  H4F N V^f!(#%` ` XH  X  K.` hp x (#FX(#%K Xi   XXX X Defendantassertsthattheclausesweepsunderthe  o arbitrationumbrellaalloftheclaimsinPlaintiffXXX X= XXXXsComplaint,  5 whilePlaintiffvigorouslyassertsthattheagreementto    arbitrateintheConsultingAgreementcannotbereadtostep q  beyonditsboundariesandinfectanewagreementfreelyreached 7  bythepartiesthatcontainsnonewarbitrationprovision. Xij݌ M  Ќ   ` ` XX XXX X XXX X    XXX X XXX X  H4F N V^f!(#%` ` XH   K.` hp x (#FX(#%K m   XXX X   !<( ` hp x (#X<SimpleinspectionofthewordingofParagraph26ofthe  ConsultingAgreementdisclosesthattherewasanintentto O broadlyrequirearbitration.First,theclausereferstoXXX XA XXXXall e disputesXXX X@ XXXXԀasbeingarbitrablewithoutanyqualification.A + disputeisaXXX XA XXXXdebate,controversyordifferenceofopinionXXX X@ XXXX.  RandomHouseWebsterXXX X= XXXXsUnabridgedDictionary,2ndEdition569 g (1999).Itisabroadtermandwouldseemtoincludeany - } disagreementthatthepartieshadduringthetimeoftheir !C! contractualrelationship.Itwouldsurelyseemtoinclude # # controversiesthatariseduringthetermofthecontractthat % % relateinanywaytotheworkperformedortobeperformedby E'"' PlaintiffforDefendantwhilethepartiesremainintheoverall  )[$) relationship. mn݌ *!&+ !  ! !  ь  ! ` ` X` X(#! XXX X XXX X  Plaintiffsuggeststhatthebalanceof  thephraseslistingthemattersthatmaybe v arbitratedaremorespecificanddonot < evidenceanintenttosweepsobroadly.It  R iscorrectthatasthesentencereadson,the   otherparallelphrasesgetincreasinglymore    specificrunningfromXXX XA XXXXclaimsofeitherparty T  heretoXXX X@ XXXXԀtofinallyXXX XA XXXXquestionsasto... j  extensionoftimeXXX X@ XXXX.Whilethisistrue, 0 thereisnoindicationinreadingthisclause  initsentiretyandinthecontextofthe l entireconsultingagreementofanydesireby 2 thecontractingpartiestobeparsimoniousin H whatwastobearbitrated.  "Whateverdoubtwouldotherwiseinfecta  constructionofParagraph26iscuredand J eliminatedbyfurtherexaminationofthe !`  federalcaselawwhichhasconstruedlanguage "&" similartothatfoundinParagraph26tobe $$ XXX XA XXXXbroadarbitrationclausescapableofan b&!& expansivereach.XXX X@ XXXXԀAmericanRecovery,96F.3d ((x#( at93.SeePrimaPaintCorp.v.Flood& )>%* ConklinMfg.Co.,388U.S.395(1967);J.J. +', "  " "  Ryan&Sons,Inc.v.RhonePoulencTextile,  S.A.,863F.2d315(4thCir.1988).Inthe v FourthCircuitXXX X= XXXXsview,suchbroadclausesdo < notlimitarbitrationtotheliteral  R interpretationorperformanceofthe   contract,butXXX XA XXXXembrace[d]everydispute    betweenthepartieshavingasignificant T  relationshiptothecontractregardlessof j  thelabelattachedtothedisputeXXX X@ XXXX.American 0 Recovery,96F.3dat88(1996).  InapplyingthisXXX XA XXXXsignificant l relationshipXXX X@ XXXXԀtest,theAmericanRecovery 2 courtfoundtortandequityclaimsthatwere H allegedtoariseunderanotheragreementto  bearbitrablebecausetherewasasufficient  relationshipbetweentheclaimmadeby J plaintiffandtheoriginalagreement !`  containingthearbitrationclause.Indeed, "&" thecourtevenfoundaquantummeruitclaim $$ that,byitsdefinitionmustbeindependent b&!& ofanexpressagreement,couldstillhavethe ((x#( significantrelationshiptotheagreement )>%* containingthearbitrationclausesuchthat +', itwouldbesweptintoarbitration.Asthe  courtexplained: v  X6"` ` hp x` ` X6Aclaimmayariseoutsideofanagreementand < yetstillberelatedtothatagreement;we  o mustanalyzetherelationshipbetweenthe  R claimandtheagreementwithoutregardtothe  5 legallabelassignedtotheclaim.     B.` hp x (#` ` XBId.at95.     X#K1` hp x (#` XKInthiscase,alloftheclaimsraisedbythePlaintiffdo T  haveasignificantrelationshiptotheconsultingagreement, j  regardlessofthecreativelegallabelPlaintiffattachesto 0 them.Alloftheclaimsaresaidtohavearisenwhilethe  originalconsultingagreementwasstillineffectandgoverning l thepartiesoverallbusinessrelationship.Itcanalsobesaid 2 thateachoftheclaimsarosefromandoriginatesinthework H performedundertheconsultingagreement.PlaintiffXXX X= XXXXsattemptsto  putanintellectualfirewallbetweentheoriginalagreementXXX X= XXXXs  arbitrationmandateanditsclaimsbyassertingthatanew, J independentoralcontractarosethatdivorcesitfromthereach !`  ofthearbitrationclausearenotpersuasive.IntheFourth "&" CircuitXXX X= XXXXswords,thisisputtingaXXX XA XXXXlegallabelXXX X@ XXXXԀontheclaim $$  whileignoringtheoverallrelationshipoftheparties,the b&!& # # #  timingandflowoftheoriginalcontract,andthepracticaland  economicimplicationsfortheparties.  $   3     Otea   v  %K.` hp x (#` XKGiventheneedforXXX XA XXXXpositiveassuranceXXX X@ XXXXԀthatawrittenbroad < arbitrationagreementdoesnotcoveraresultingdispute,Longv.  R Silver,248F.3d309,316(2001),itwouldbeincumbenton   partiesenvelopedinabusinessrelationshipotherwisegoverned    bysuchabroadarbitrationprovisiontoexpresslyprovidein T  subsequentlyformedoralagreementsreachedduringthetermof j  thewrittenagreementthattheirdisputeswillnotbesubjectto 0 arbitration,shouldthatbetheirdesire.Otherwise,giventhe  stateofthecaselaw,itwillbepresumedthatdisputesthat l arisewillbesosubject.Ofcourse,Plaintiffheredoesnot 2 allegeinitscomplaintthattherewasanysuchintentpositively H expressedinthesocalledoralagreementsallegedlyreachedwith  DefendanttocreateaXXX XA XXXXsafeharbourXXX X@ XXXXԀfromtheotherwisebroadly  imposedarbitrationregime.  &   4     tea   J  Plaintiffalsoassertsthattheexistenceofanintegration !`  % % %  XclauseinParagraph27oftheoriginalconsultantXXX X= XXXXsagreementis   evidencethatthearbitrationclauseinParagraph26wastobe v readnarrowlyandindicatesthatitwasnottoeffectanything < excepttheexpresstermsofthewrittenagreementXXX XA XXXXandcontrol  R onlymattersinvolvingthatagreementXXX X@ XXXX.PlaintiffXXX X= XXXXsResponseto   DefendantVerizonXXX X= XXXXsMotionToDismiss,Page11.Plaintiffrelies    onthelanguageinParagraph27whichsaysthatthisAgreement T  XXX XA XXXXconstitutestheentireagreementXXX X@ XXXX,andfurtherthatthe j  agreementXXX XA XXXXshallnotbechangedexceptbywrittenagreement 0 signedbybothparties.XXX X@ XXXX   XThisCourtdoesnotreadtheclausetolimitthescopeof l claimssubjecttoarbitration.Asstatedabove,byagreeingto 2 thebroaddescriptionofmatterssubjecttoarbitrationincluded H inParagraph26andeffectivelyadoptingthefederalcaselawon  theFAA,Plaintiffwasagreeingnotonlytoarbitratematters  withinthefourcornersoftheagreementbutalsotoarbitrate J allclaimsfallingwithintheXXX XA XXXXsignificantrelationshipXXX X@ XXXXԀtest !`  describedabove,regardlessoftheirlegallabel. "&" 'Indeed,ifanything,theintegrationclausecastsdoubton $$ PlaintiffXXX X= XXXXsargumentthattherewasasubsequentoralagreement b&!& notsubjecttothebroadarbitrationprovision.Iftherewereto ((x#( beanalterationofthebroadarbitrationclauseaffecting )>%* mattersthathaveasignificantrelationshiptotheoriginal +', ' ' '  agreement,itwouldhavetobebyawrittenagreementsignedby  bothpartiesinordertoconformwithParagraph27.Plaintiff v doesnotallegethatanysuchagreementtoexpresslymodifyor < limitthearbitrationclausewasevermadebythepartiesin  R adoptingthesocalledoralagreementmentionedintheComplaint   orthatitwasreducedtowriting. 6X X    E1` hp x (#XE XX 6Insum,thereisasignificantrelationshipbetweenallof T  theclaimsmadebythePlaintiffintheComplaintbeforethis j  CourtandtheoriginalConsultingAgreementcontainingthe 0 expansivearbitrationclause.Assuch,thePlaintiffisrequired  toarbitrateitsclaimsagainstDefendant,andthisCourtmust l dismissthem.  (   5     ãtea   2 Verizonfurtherassertsthatitisentitledtocourtcosts H andattorneysXXX X= XXXXԀfeesithasincurredinconnectionwiththeMotion  becauseParagraph26oftheConsultingAgreementfurtherprovides  that: J  X)  E(` ` hp x` XEApartythatresortstolitigationin !`  derogationofthearbitrationagreementshall !C! beliabletotheotherpartyforcourtcosts "&" andattorneysXXX X= XXXXԀfeestoobtainastayof # # litigation,itsdismissal,oranorder $$ compellingarbitration. % %  E+ ` hp x` ` XE X N1` hp x (#` XNPTPXXX X= XXXXsonlyargumentagainsttheawardofcostsandfeesis E'"' basedonitscontentionthattheallegedneworalagreement  )[$) ) ) )  arose,thusblockinganyfurtherforceandeffectofthewritten  Agreement,includingthecostsandfeesprovision.Sincethe v Court <  XhasfoundPTPXXX X= XXXXsargumentnottohavemeritasiteffectsthe  R flowthroughnatureofthebroadarbitrationclause,PTPis   liableforVerizonXXX X= XXXXscourtcostsandattorneysXXX X= XXXXԀfees.Theamount    andreasonablenessofVerizonXXX X= XXXXsclaimwillneedtobe T  established. j  Conclusion 0  XForthesereasons,itis,this3rddayofDecember,2003,  ORDERED,thatVerizonXXX X= XXXXsMotiontoDismissisgranted;andit l isfurther, 2 ORDERED,thatallclaimsagainstVerizonNetworkIntegration H Corporationaredismissed;anditisfurther,  ORDERED,thatVerizonisentitledundertheagreementto  havePTPpaytoitthecourtcostsandattorneysXXX X= XXXXԀfeesnecessary J forittoobtainthisorderofdismissal;anditisfurther, !`  ORDERED,thatifthepartiesareunabletoagreeonthe "&" amounttobeawarded,theyshalljointlynotifytheCourtin $$ writingwithin30daysofthedateofthisOrder,andfurther b&!& proceedingswillbescheduledonthatissue. ((x#(  hXK.` hp x (#` XK_______/s/____________________ )>%*    `     h     DennisM.Sweeney *!&+ ЀJUDGE +',  h*CopiesMailed򀀀to:  AlanH.Silverberg,Esq. Y Summerfield,Willen,Silverberg < Ѐ&Limsky,P.A.  o 10019ReisterstownRoad  R Suite301  5 OwingsMills,MD211173910   JohnE.McCann,Esq.    Miles&Stockbridge,P.C. q  10LightStreet T  Suite1400 7  Baltimore,MD21202 j  AnneMarieWhittemore,Esq. 0 McGuireWoodsLLP  901EastCaryStreet  Richmond,VA23219  CharlesWm.McIntyre,Jr.,Esq. O CandiceS.Shepherd,Esq. 2 McGuireWoodsLLP e 1750TysonsBlvd.,Suite1800 H McLean,VA22102 + ChristopherS.Young,Esq.  Business&TechnologyLawGroup  8825StanfordBoulevard g Suite206 J Columbia,MD21045 - } PaulG.Skalny,Esq. !C! Davis,Agnor,Rapaport&Skalny "&" 10211WincopinCircle # # Suite600 $$ Columbia,MD21044 % %    6X Xl 6B.` hp x (#XB