WPC  "3N<f@C$grI:4ѧ9_1DCSLFB0w|H& gYuP5W:[LȐx wG`%%sQ200 9?MZ_f"}ߴzlεRYI<*|YhfjS|Nnˡէ,!B Wo@<0V_:Bl; H4xd5 p~Ob~kO~̋B3ûFނ6B@d0@p㎞\_xdCp A~ó@B[2$P`~Q1Q Jqw!VwnZ G[!Vn]'_Z])Bl2,ʕc(B&`dTӅkwQ:E=^ Y)x{Jxqk>AB;_iU>V 0< 0<2UJnU8 0#UN[ % M ( N ^ w 4  m \  `&Times New Roman' Patuxent Technology Partners, LLC Training(0MD Court System .   <:Default Para<:Footnote RefkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols\  ` GoudyOlSt BT#|x(r+$..       0:X X0: 0:HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular X.0 h.yweb0U +!..       8X X8 8  _         XrX8  _Patuxent_ԀTechnologyPartners,LLC.V._Verizon_ԀNetworkIntegrationCorp.,No.13C0354350,  2003_MDBT_Ԁ10(CircuitCourtforHowardCounty)(perJudgeDennisM.Sweeney).   X_Patuxent_ԀTechnologyPartners(XXXXr_AXrXXXPTP_XXXXr@XrXXX)filedacomplaintagainst_Verizon_ԀNetwork g IntegrationCorporation(XXXXr_AXrXXXVerizon_XXXXr@XrXXX)andeightotherdefendants._PTP_Ԁwasaconsultantto O _Verizon_,arelationshipthatbeganwithaconsultingagreemententeredintoin2000andextended 7 h andrenewedthroughApril2002._PTP_Ԁallegedthat_Verizon_Ԁenteredintoasubsequentoral  N agreementwith_PTP_,referredtoby_PTP_ԀastheXXXXr_AXrXXXsubcontractor_Ԁagreement,XXXXr@XrXXXԀthatwasinaddition  4 to,andnotinconsistentwith,theconsultingagreement._PTP_Ԁallegedthatitcreatedanexclusive    contractforservices.     X XTheoriginal,written,consultingagreementcontainedadisputeresolutionprovision.It   providedforaninternaldisputeresolutionproceduretobefollowedbybindingarbitration,   pursuanttotheconstructionindustryrulesoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.XPXXXrԀ_XrXXXPThe_ i  contractprovidedthattheagreementtoarbitratewastobesubjecttotheFederalArbitrationAct.XPXXXrԀ Y  ЀXrXXXPԀArbitrationwascompulsoryforalldisputes,claims,orquestionsconcerninginterpretationor Iz clarificationoftheagreementortheacceptablefulfillmentoftheagreementbyeitherparty. 9j  XQuestion:Weresomeoralloftheclaimsinthelawsuitcoveredbythearbitrationclauseofthe 6 writtenagreement?  Held:_Verizon_XXXXr=XrXXXsmotiontodismissgranted.Moreover,undertheagreement,_Verizon_Ԁisentitled  tohave_PTP_ԀpaythecourtcostsandattorneysXXXXr=XrXXXԀfeesnecessarytoobtaintheorderofdismissal;if  thepartiesareunabletoagreeontheamounttobeawarded,theyweretonotifythecourtfor  furtherproceedingstobeconducted. m Synopsis:Thewrittenconsultingagreementdisclosesanintenttobroadlyrequirearbitration. 9j TherewasnoqualificationtothephraseXXXXr_AXrXXXall_XXXXr@XrXXXԀdisputesbeingarbitrable.Thiswouldsurelyseem P toincludecontroversiesthatariseduringthetermofthecontractthatrelateinanywaytothe 8 workperformedby_PTP_Ԁor_Verizon_Ԁwhilethepartiesremainedintheoverallrelationship.  InthecontextoftheFederalArbitrationAct,thereisaXXXXr_AXrXXXheavy_Ԁpresumptionof_arbitrability_XXXXr@XrXXX    whichrequiresacourttodecideaquestioninfavorofarbitrationincasesopentoquestion. !! Federalcaselawsupportsgivinganexpansivereachtobroadarbitrationclausessuchastheone m## inthiscase.InwhatisknownastheXXXXr_AXrXXXsignificant_ԀrelationshipXXXXr@XrXXXԀtest,abroadarbitrationclause S$ $ XXXXr_AXrXXXembrace[s_]everydisputebetweenthepartieshavingasignificantrelationshiptothecontract ;%l!% regardlessofthelabelattachedtothedispute.XXXXr@XrXXXԀSlipop.at13,quotingAmericanRecoveryCorp. #&T"& v.ComputerizedThermalImaging,Inc.,96F.3d88,93(4thCir.1996).Inthiscase,allof_PTP_XXXXr=XrXXXs  '<#' claimshaveasignificantrelationshiptotheconsultingagreement.Indeed,itwouldbe '$$( incumbentonthepartiesinabusinessrelationshipcoveredbysuchbroadarbitrationprovisions ( %) toprovideexpresslyinsubsequentagreementsthattheirdisputeswillnotbesubjectto )%* arbitration,shouldthatbetheirdesire. *&+ 8XXr