ÿWPC 1},üD®Ïtr(4½t‘rLâ0¸ìGóÊme¼›D÷äJ§_—‘6HzMú.„‡ƒ$dÆl?{k^èm4êæY w[§§VqFTéÞ_é.Š®F׫Ûþ“õ^ùƒÔ¿êÛ"™Wغ:¸j›©{.».Ëu,¬9#¨|‰iª°ÏÑB—žÓ¹àˆ*‘ýp šI©â z]m@êQðמ;R™žv™nQ7%Ú!“É‹ Ɔa ë¯ÒzÞìîLpBøª^ÏÛtF§;ÂfMTwØLí÷åû ÷ ì!ì%™i×¹†íÒ|òç.~øÏdý¬øÔU 6!°óH¤I^¢•úhé.àIa¬Sß4¨Œ¥§JûsF NœIŹS¯9ag¼4â%óÅ—¤î§5=y•M;Ǫ~טM¹K9ÉÝ F½#^Gž`|*ÉÂkðY]®v¥®µîaF¤aåyãà~‡˜lÊÈ„7þ’îö ^ȫNJ6r?‚“Um_4NýVÓ”2Y^­ŒòÀ<ãÉì˜ÏÝ>©`×§O…›ù¹’cB½4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓÓ  Ó`†~ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔO€<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTOÔh†~ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔO€<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTOÔ ›Ý ƒ a{)ÝÔ€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý߇€QA=x h x p€ €@XE»°d¦d¦»°d¦‡ßâ °»°»°(#°(#âÓ  ÓÓ$°°ÀÐ (#°œX$ÓÌâ °(#°(#°»°»âÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°ÀÐ (#HÓ(e2a{$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  ÓÝ  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2a{$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(e2a{$££Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú'dxd Cþÿ<< cÿÿ Ý ƒ a{"ÝÔ€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ$°°ÀÐ (#°œX$ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€XvXòô½˜ÔÔ€X§DXXXvÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôEçòXX§DÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚÔA  ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿȃ ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô½˜òòô½˜ÔÔ€ô½˜òòô½˜ÔÝ  Ý;þ6X9`("Courier NewTT3|x (J$¡¡Ô€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 5MÈ,,,,È0!‚‚:2â ¤n‘1yweb0 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ôEçòòôÔÔ€ô½˜òòôEçÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÖ€ ÿÿÖÑ  ÑÔ€XvXòô½˜ÔÔ  ÔMAXIMUS,€INC.à ¸ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*à  àà p àIN€THEÐ ° Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð xÈ Ðà0  àà ` àPlaintiffà  àà h àà À à€€*à  àà p àCIRCUIT€COURTÐ@(#(# ÐÌvs.€€€€€€€€€à ¸ à€€à  àà h àà À à€€*à  àà p àFORÐ Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€Ð ˜è ÐALAN€FABIAN,€ET€AL.à  àà h àà À à€€*à  àà p àHOWARD€COUNTYÐ ` ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àDefendantsà h àà À à€€*à  àà p àCase€No.€13„C„04„59176Ðð @` (#` (# ÐÌ*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*Ð € Ð  ÐÌÓÓà@XX%ìàòòORAL€RULINGóóˆÐ `  ÐÓÓÓÓà  àÔ€XvXXXvÔThe€Court€has€before€it€the€decision€in€this€case€on€theÐ  ð  Ðindividual€Defendantsðð€Motions€to€Dismiss,€Counts€I€to€VI,€and€X,Ð 0€  Ðof€Plaintiffððs€verified€Complaint.€€This€will€constitute€theÐ À ÐCourtððs€Ruling€on€these€Motions.€€The€Court€will€reserve€the€rightÐ P  Ðto€correct€for€form,€or€citation,€or€grammar,€the€Opinion€that€isÐ à0 Ðissuing€here,€but€will€not€change€it€in€substance:Ð pÀ Ðà  àOn€July€14,€2004,€Maximus,€Inc.€filed€a€complaint€against€twoÐ P Ðformer€employees,€Alan€Fabian€and€John€Hoffman,€and€two€entitiesÐ à Ðthat€Maximus€alleges€they€either€owned€or€were€substantiallyÐ  p Ðinvolved€with.€€In€a€nutshell,€the€overall€complaint€of€Maximus€isÐ ° Ðset€out€succinctly€on€the€second€page€of€the€complaint€whereÐ @ ÐMaximus€states:€ð ðIn€secret,€Fabian€and€Hoffman€orchestrated€anÐ Ð  Ðelaborate€scheme€to€attempt€to€bind€Maximus€to€31€million€dollarsÐ `"° Ðin€guarantees€supporting€the€lease€of€IT€equipment€which€had€noÐ ð#@ Ðbusiness€relation€to€Maximus.€Rather€the€IT€equipment€wasÐ €%Ð  Ðultimately€for€the€use€of€SPI,€Inc.€and€CMAT,€two€corporateÐ '`" Ðentities€owned€and/or€controlled€by€Fabian€and/or€Hoffman.ðð€ThisÐ  (ð# Ðscheme,€is€alleged€to€have€occurred€while€Fabian€and€Hoffman€wereÐ 0*€% Ðemployed€by€Maximus.€Ð À+'  Ðà  àBeyond€this€core€assertion,€Maximus€alleges€the€followingÐ P- (! Ðcounts:€Count€I€„€Breach€of€Fiduciary€Duty€(Duty€of€Loyalty)€ð!ðÐ ° ÐFabian€and€Hoffman;€Count€II€„€Breech€of€Fiduciary€Duty€„€FabianÐ @ Ðand€Hoffman;€Count€III€„€Constructive€Fraud€„€Fabian€and€Hoffman;Ð Ð  ÐCount€IV€ð!ð€Fraudulent€Concealment€„€all€Defendants;€Count€V€ð!ðÐ ` ° ÐConversionð!ðFabian€and€Hoffman;€Count€VI€„€Conspiracy€ð!ð€Fabian€andÐ ð @ ÐHoffman;€Count€VIIð!ðTortious€Interference€with€Economic€Advantage€„Ð € Ð ÐSPI,€Inc.,€and€CMAT;€Count€VIII€„€Fraudulent€Concealmentð!ðSPI,€Inc.Ð `  ÐAnd€CMAT;€Count€IX€ð!ð€Conspiracy€to€Defraud€Maximus„SPI€and€CMAT;Ð  ð  ÐCount€X€ð!ð€Breach€of€Employment€Contract€„€Fabian€and€Hoffman.Ð 0€  ÐAmong€the€relief€sought€by€Maximus€are:€Ð À  Ðà  à1.€Injunctions€against€the€defendants€from€employing€anyÐ P   ÐMaximus€employee€in€their€new€ventures.Ð à0  Ðà  à2.€Disgorgement€of€all€sums€paid€to€Fabian€and€Hoffman€for€theÐ pÀ  Ðacquisition€of€SPI,€LLC,€which€is€alleged€to€be€$1,800,000.00.Ð P  Ðà  à3.€Disgorgement€of€all€compensation€paid€to€Fabian€andÐ à ÐHoffman,€alleged€to€be€$1,600,000.00.€Ð  p Ðà  à4.€An€accounting€of€all€profits€received€by€SPI€Inc.,€and€CMATÐ ° Ðin€connection€with€any€lease€purportedly€guaranteed€by€Maximus.Ð @ Ðà  à5.€Imposition€of€a€constructive€trust€in€Maximusðð€favor€on€allÐ Ð  Ðprofits€received€by€SPI,€Inc.,€and€CMAT€in€connection€with€anyÐ `"° Ðlease€purportedly€guaranteed€by€Maximus.Ð ð#@ Ðà  à6.€Monetary€damages€and€attorneys€fees.Ð €%Ð  Ðà  àDefendants€Fabian€and€Hoffman€moved€to€dismiss€with€prejudiceÐ '`" ÐCounts€I€to€VI€and€X€of€the€Complaint€asserting€that€the€agreementsÐ  (ð# Ðthey€signed€with€Maximus€required€that€either€party€to€theÐ 0*€% Ðagreements€must€resolve€any€ð ðdisputeðð€through€attempts€at€amicableÐ ° Ðsettlement€and€then€through€arbitration€outside€of€the€courtÐ @ Ðprocess.€€Maximus€responded€by€arguing€that€it€was€not€required€toÐ Ð  Ðarbitrate€the€claims€in€Counts€I„VI€of€its€Complaint€and€that€itÐ ` ° Ðexpressly€has€the€right€to€pursue€all€injunctive€relief€sought€inÐ ð @ ÐCount€X€outside€of€arbitration.€A€hearing€was€held€on€the€motion€onÐ € Ð ÐOctober€12,€2004,€todayððs€date.Ð `  Ðà  àAs€noted€earlier€in€this€hearing,€plaintiff€has€voluntarilyÐ  ð  Ðdismissed€Count€II€„„€Breech€of€Fiduciary€Duty€as€to€Fabian€andÐ 0€  ÐHoffman.€€There€is€thus€no€need€for€a€ruling€on€that€count.Ð À  Ðà  àCertain€central€issues€are€not€in€dispute€among€the€parties:Ð P   Ð1.€All€agree€at€least€for€purposes€of€this€Motion€that€Fabian€andÐ à0  ÐHoffman€executed€the€Executive€Employment,€Non„compete€andÐ pÀ  ÐConfidentiality€Agreements€that€contain€the€arbitration€provisionÐ P  Ðand€no€party€is€contending€that€the€contract€does€not€bind€theÐ à Ðparties.€2.€All€agree,€at€least€for€purposes€of€this€Motion,€thatÐ  p Ðpursuant€to€Section€4.10€of€the€agreement€that€the€laws€of€theÐ ° ÐCommonwealth€of€Virginia€control€construction€of€the€agreement€andÐ @ Ðthat€Maryland€case€law€requires€this€court€to€apply€the€law€ofÐ Ð  ÐVirginia.€€Ð `"° Ðà  àThe€arbitration€provision€at€issue€in€this€case€is€inÐ ð#@ ÐParagraph€4.11€of€the€Executive€Employment€Agreement,€and€states€asÐ €%Ð  Ðto€arbitration.€Ð '`" ÐÓÓÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àThe€parties€hereto€shall€attempt€to€settle€amicablyÐ h)¸$ Ðthrough€negotiations,€any€controversy,€claim€orÐ 0*€% Ðdispute€between€the€parties€arising€out€of€orÐ ø*H& Ðrelating€to€this€Agreement€(a€ð ðDisputeðð).€€If€aÐ À+' Ðdispute€cannot€be€settled€by€such€means,€theÐ ° Ðparties€hereto€intend€and€agree€to€submit€suchÐ xÈ ÐDispute€to€final€and€binding€arbitration€before€anÐ @ Ðarbitration€tribunal€which€is,€and€pursuant€toÐ X Ðarbitration€procedures€which€are,€acceptable€to€allÐ Ð  Ðparties.€€If€the€parties€cannot,€or€do€notÐ ˜è Ðotherwise€agree€within€30€days€of€the€date€on€whichÐ ` ° Ðnotice€of€a€Dispute€is€given,€any€such€claim€shallÐ ( x Ðbe€submitted€for€arbitration€by€the€AmericanÐ ð @ ÐArbitration€Association€pursuant€to€the€CommercialÐ ¸   ÐArbitration€Rules€of€the€American€ArbitrationÐ € Ð  ÐAssociation€then€in€effect.€Any€arbitration€shallÐ H ˜  Ðbe€conducted€in€Virginia.Ð` ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓÓà  àAnd€the€clause€goes€on€and€further€provides€that:€Ð Ø(  ÐÓÓà  àÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àThe€parties€hereto€further€intend€and€agree€thatÐ 0€  Ðthe€final€decision€or€award€of€the€arbitrationÐ øH  Ðtribunal€shall€be€binding€on€the€parties€and€theirÐ À Ðsuccessors€and€fully€enforceable€by€any€Court€ofÐ ˆØ Ðcompetent€jurisdiction.€€The€parties€hereto€furtherÐ P  Ðintend€and€agree€that€facts€and€other€informationÐ h Ðrelating€to€any€arbitration€arising€out€of€or€inÐ à0 Ðconnection€with€this€Agreement€shall€be€keptÐ ¨ø Ðconfidential€to€the€fullest€extent€permitted€byÐ pÀ Ðlaw.Ð8ˆ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€addition,€each€party€shall€bear€its€ownÐ È Ðexpenses€in€connection€with€such€arbitration€unlessÐ à Ðotherwise€ordered€by€the€arbitrator.ÐX¨` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà  àFinally,€in€that€clause,€this€provision€occurs:Ð è8 Ðà  àÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àNotwithstanding€the€foregoing,€the€provisions€ofÐ xÈ  Ðthis€section€do€not€require€arbitration€of€anyÐ @! Ðclaim€for€injunctive€relief€within€the€scope€ofÐ  X" ÐParagraph€(b)€of€Section€4.3€above.ÐÐ #` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓÓà  àThe€provisions€of€4.3€that€are€particularly€applicable€here€isÐ ˜!è$ Ðthat€which€provides€that:Ð (#x% ÐÓÓà  à€Ð ¸$ & Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àThe€terms€of€Sections€2.1,€and€2.2€hereof€mayÐ €%Ð ' Ðresult€in€irreparable€injury€and€damage€to€theÐ H&˜!( ÐCorporation,€or€its€clients,€which€may€notÐ '`") Ðadequately€be€compensable€in€monetary€damages,€thatÐ Ø'(#* Ðthe€Corporation€may€not€have€an€adequate€remedy€atÐ  (ð#+ Ðlaw€therefor,€and€that€the€corporation€may€obtainÐ h)¸$, Ðsuch€preliminary€temporary€or€permanent€mandatoryÐ 0*€%- Ðrestraining€injunctions,€orders€or€decrees€as€mayÐ ø*H&. Ðbe€necessary€to€protect€it€against,€or€on€accountÐ À+'/ Ðof,€any€breach€of€Sections€2.1€and€2.2.€Ð ° ÐNotwithstanding€and€as€an€exception€of€both€SectionÐ xÈ Ð4.11€hereof€and€the€arbitration€provision€containedÐ @ Ðin€the€Purchase€Agreement,€the€parties€furtherÐ X Ðagree€and€acknowledge€that€the€Corporation€may€seekÐ Ð  Ðsuch€injunctory€relief€in€any€court€of€competentÐ ˜è Ðjurisdiction.Ð` °` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓÓà  àSections€2.1€and€2.2€outline€the€non„competition€andÐ ( x Ðprohibited€activities€that€the€injunctive€relief€provisions€applyÐ ¸  Ðto.Ð H ˜  Ðà  àThis€Court€must€apply€Virginia€law€to€these€provisions€andÐ Ø(  Ðmake€a€determination€as€to€whether€or€not€the€Motions€should€beÐ h¸  Ðgranted.€€There€is€little€surprising€in€Virginiaððs€case€law€onÐ øH  Ðarbitration.€€It€parallels€closely€the€law€as€it€has€developed€inÐ ˆØ  ÐMaryland€and,€more€significantly,€the€law,€as€derived€from€theÐ h ÐFederal€Arbitration€Act.€€The€Federal€Arbitration€Act€is€theÐ ¨ø Ðgenesis€of€much€of€modern€judicial€decisions€deferring€toÐ 8ˆ Ðcontractual€arbitration.€€Both€Maryland€and€Virginia€have€adoptedÐ È Ðthe€Uniform€Arbitration€Act.€€Compare€the€Maryland€Law,€Section€3„Ð X¨ Ð201€of€the€Court€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€with€the€VirginiaÐ è8 Ðadoption€of€the€arbitration€act,€Code€Section€8.01„581.01€throughÐ xÈ Ð581.016.Ð  X Ðà  àThe€most€recent€cases€that€have€been€relied€on€by€the€partiesÐ ˜!è Ðin€this€case,€from€the€Virginia€Supreme€Court€are€òòWaterfront€MarineÐ (#x ÐConstruction,€Inc.€v.€North€End€49ers€Sandbridge€Bulkhead€Groupsóó€atòòÐ ¸$  Ð251€Va.€417,€468€SE€2d€894€(óó1996),€òòMcMullin€v.€Union€Land€&Ð H&˜! ÐManagement€Company,€242€Va.€337,€410€SE€2d,€636,€(1991),€and€WeitzÐ Ø'(# Ðv.€Hudson,€262€Va.€224,€546€SE€2d€732,€(óó2001).Ð h)¸$ Ðà  àThese€cases€stand€for€familiar€propositions€such€as€that€noÐ ø*H& Ðparty€can€be€compelled€to€arbitrate€a€question€that€is€notÐ ° Ðarbitrable€under€the€agreement€between€the€parties.€€òòWhite€v.Ð @ ÐHudsonóó,€supra.€€The€Supreme€Court€of€Virginia€has€also€describedÐ Ð  Ðthe€commonly€found€phrase€ð ðarising€out€of€or€relating€toðð€in€anÐ ` ° Ðarbitration€clause€as,€ð ðvery€broad€in€its€coverage.ðð€òòWaterfrontÐ ð @ ÐMarine€Construction,€Inc.€v.€North€End€49ers.óó€€The€Court€noted€thatÐ € Ð Ðð ðbroad€language€of€this€nature€covers€contract„generated€orÐ `  Ðcontract„related€disputes€between€the€parties€however€labeled.ððÐ  ð  ÐòòMcMullinóó,€242€Va.€At€341.ððÐ 0€  Ðà  àVirginia€Circuit€Courts€in€cases€cited€by€the€parties€haveÐ À  Ðfound€that€ð ðbroad€arbitration€clauses€do€not€limit€arbitration€toÐ P   Ðthe€literal€interpretation€or€performance€of€the€contract,€butÐ à0  Ðembrace€every€dispute€thatððs€a€significant€relationship€to€theÐ pÀ  Ðcontract€regardless€of€the€label€attached€to€the€dispute,ðð€adoptingÐ P  Ðthe€language€and€logic€in€federal€cases€such€as€the€FourthÐ à ÐCircuitððs€decision€in€òòAmerican€Recovery€Corp.€v.€ComputerizedÐ  p ÐThermal€Imaging,€Incóó.€òò96€F.3d€88,€93€(4òòthóó€óóa€Fourth€Cir.€1966).òò€€óóÐ ° Ðà  àThe€reach€of€such€clauses,€with€broad€arbitration€provisionsÐ @ Ðis€not€unlimited€to€encompass€all€items€of€dispute€between€theÐ Ð  Ðparties€that€temporally€follow€after€an€agreement€to€arbitrate.€Ð `"° ÐFor€example,€in€òòWaterfront€Marine€Construction,€Inc.€v.€North€EndÐ ð#@ Ð49ersóó,€the€Virginia€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€claim€for€arbitrationÐ €%Ð  Ðrelating€to€non„compliance€with€the€first€arbitration€award€was€notÐ '`" Ðarbitrable€despite€there€being€a€very€broad€arbitration€clause.€Ð  (ð# ÐThat€finding€appears€to€rely€as€much€on€the€statutory€mechanism€forÐ 0*€% Ðenforcing€an€arbitration€award€in€Virginia€rather€than€any€intentÐ ° Ðto€carve€back€the€expansive€reach€of€such€arbitration€clausesÐ @ Ðrecognized€in€earlier€cases€such€as€òòMcMullinóó.Ð Ð  Ðà  àIn€this€case,€there€is€no€doubt€that€the€parties€to€theÐ ` ° Ðemployment€agreement€intended€that€any€ð ðdisputeðð€between€theÐ ð @ Ðparties€ð ðarising€out€of€or€relating€to€this€agreementðð€would€beÐ € Ð Ðsubmitted€to€final€and€binding€arbitration.€€The€only€carve€out€isÐ `  Ðthat€the€arbitration€clause€does€not€bar€ð ðany€claim€for€injunctiveÐ  ð  Ðrelief€within€the€scope€of€paragraph€(b)€of€Section€4.3€above.ððÐ 0€  Ðà  àIn€going€back€to€òòMcMullinóó,€that€court€construing€a€similarÐ À  Ðbroad€arbitration€provision€said€[at€639]:€ð ðIt€is€immaterialÐ P   Ðwhether€the€basis€for€the€claim€is€in€the€language€of€the€joint„Ð à0  Ðventure€agreement,€or€the€relationship€itselfðð,€citing€òòSindler€v.Ð pÀ  ÐBattleman,€óó416€A.2d€238,€243,€(D.C.€App.€1980)òò.€óó€Such€a€clause,€ð ðisÐ P  Ðnot€limited€to€disputes€over€the€terms€of€the€contract€or€toÐ à Ðdisputes€arising€during€the€performance€of€the€contract.ðð€616,€n.6Ð  p ÐòòMaldonado€v.€PPG€Industries,€Inc.óó,€514€F.2d€614,€a€1975(1òòstóó€Cir.,Ð ° Ð1975.)€Rather,€ð ðbroad€language€of€this€nature€covers€contract„Ð @ Ðgenerated€or€contract„related€disputes€between€the€parties€howeverÐ Ð  Ðlabeled.ðð€Id.€at€616.€€Indeed,€ð ðan€arbitration€clause€coveringÐ `"° Ðclaims€ððrelating€toðð€a€contract€is€broader€than€a€clause€coveringÐ ð#@ Ðclaims€ððarising€out€ofðð€a€contract,€òòIntððl€Talent€Group,€Inc.,€v.Ð €%Ð  ÐCopyright€Management,€Inc.óó,€629€F.€Supp.€587,€592€(S.D.N.Y.€1986).ððÐ '`" Ðà  àIn€this€case,€there€is€little€doubt,€as€this€Court€discernsÐ  (ð# Ðit,€that€the€Virginia€Supreme€Court€which€has€indicated€already€itsÐ 0*€% Ðadoption€of€an€expansive€view€of€similar€arbitrations€clauses,€andÐ ° Ðadopting€also€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€and€Federal€Circuit€Courts€ofÐ @ ÐAppeal€decisions€under€the€Federal€Arbitration€Act,€will€applyÐ Ð  Ðsimilar€logic€in€itððs€application€of€Virginiaððs€Uniform€ArbitrationÐ ` ° ÐAct.€Ð ð @ Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€alleged€illegal€acts€of€the€individualÐ € Ð ÐDefendants€flowed€directly€out€of€their€employment€relationshipÐ `  Ðwith€Maximus,€Inc.,€which€was€governed,€at€its€source,€by€theÐ  ð  Ðemployment€contract€containing€the€arbitration€clause.€€Indeed,€theÐ 0€  Ðonly€way€defendants€could€have€accomplished€the€illegal€actsÐ À  Ðalleged,€was€due€to€their€status€as€employees€of€Maximus.€€MaximusÐ P   Ðsought€in€entering€into€the€employment€agreement€to€regulate€andÐ à0  Ðcontrol€the€individual€defendants€conduct€as€employees.€€There€isÐ pÀ  Ðnow€a€dispute€as€to€whether€the€individual€defendants€exceededÐ P  Ðtheir€employment€authority€or€misused€it.€€In€such€a€circumstanceÐ à Ðthe€claims€here€are€either€generated€out€of€the€agreement€orÐ  p Ðperhaps€more€clearly€are€ð ðrelatedðð€to€it.Ð ° Ðà  àMaximus€has€urged€a€more€mechanistic€approach€which€is€that,Ð @ Ðif€the€claim€in€this€Court€could€be€sustained€without€referringÐ Ð  Ðback€to€the€Executive€Employment€Non„Competing€ConfidentialityÐ `"° ÐAgreement,€that€it€can,€therefore,€not€only€can,€but€must€underÐ ð#@ ÐMaximusðð€reading€of€òòMcMullinóó,€and€òòWaterfrontóó,€must€be€allowed€toÐ €%Ð  Ðproceed€without€being€required€to€be€arbitrated.Ð '`" Ðà  àThe€Court€does€not€find€the€Virginia€Supreme€Courtððs€decisionsÐ  (ð# Ðto€require€that€result,€or€even€encourage€that€result.€€It€wouldÐ 0*€% Ðtruly€be€an€act€of€legerdemain€to€pursue€the€counts€asserted€byÐ ° ÐMaximus,€in€this€case,€without€having€as€the€touch€point,€and€theÐ @ Ðtouchstone,€the€original€Executive€Employment€&€Non„CompetingÐ Ð  ÐConfidentiality€Agreement.€€The€fact€that€it€could€be€conceivablyÐ ` ° Ðdone€as€a€matter€of€professional€advocacy€does€not€mean€that€itÐ ð @ Ðeither€bears€any€relationship€to€the€actual€economic€relationshipÐ € Ð Ðbetween€the€employer,€and€the€employee€here,€or€have€any€semblanceÐ `  Ðof€reality€to€the€employment€relationship.€€The€employmentÐ  ð  Ðrelationship€was€grounded,€founded,€and€governed,€and€regulated€byÐ 0€  Ðthe€Executive€Employment€&€Non„Competing€Confidentiality€Agreement.Ð À  Ðà  àTo€claim€that€the€counts€here€are€not€ð ðsufficiently€relatedððÐ P   Ðto€that€agreement€is€not,€in€this€Courtððs€view,€a€realisticÐ à0  Ðapproach,€or€one€that€is€in€the€spirit€of€either€the€FAA,€or€theÐ pÀ  ÐVirginia€Arbitration€Act.Ð P  Ðà  àAs€indicated,€the€plaintiffððs€views€require€a€literal€andÐ à Ðmechanistic€connection€between€the€claims,€and€the€specificÐ  p Ðobligations€under€the€agreement€contained€in€the€arbitrationÐ ° Ðclause.Ð @ Ðà  àThis€Court€concludes€that€the€Virginia€Supreme€Court€followingÐ Ð  Ðits€òòMcMullinóó€decision€will,€if€faced€with€the€issue,€conclude€thatÐ `"° Ða€more€organic€approach€is€required€consistent€with€the€lawÐ ð#@ Ðdeveloped€under€the€Federal€Arbitration€Act.€€Both€the€SupremeÐ €%Ð  ÐCourt€and€the€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€have€characterized€similarÐ '`" Ðclauses€to€the€one€here€to€be€broad€arbitration€clauses€capable€ofÐ  (ð# Ðexpansive€reach.€€See€òòPrima€Paint€Corp.€v.€Flood€&€Conklin€Mfg.Ð 0*€% ÐCo.óó,òò€óó388€US€395€(1967)òò.€€óóSuch€clauses€do€not€limit€arbitration€toÐ ° Ðthe€literal€interpretation€or€performance€of€the€contract,€butÐ @ Ðembrace€every€dispute€between€the€parties€having€a€significantÐ Ð  Ðrelationship€to€the€contract,€regardless€of€the€label€attached€toÐ ` ° Ðthe€dispute,€òòAmerican€Recovery€Corporation€v.€Computerized€ThermalÐ ð @ ÐImaging,€Inc.,€óó96€F.3d€88,€(1996)òò;€J.J.€Ryan€&€Sons,€Inc.€v.€RhoneÐ € Ð ÐPoulenc€Textile,€óó863€F.2d€315€321,€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1988).Ð `  Ðà  àIn€applying€this€test€there€is€no€question€that€the€claimsÐ  ð  Ðhere€have€as€far€as€Counts€I,€III€to€VI€and€X€have€a€ð ðsignificantÐ 0€  Ðrelationshipðð€to€the€employment€agreement€in€that€the€agreement€isÐ À  Ðthe€main€document€that€defines,€controls€and€regulates€theÐ P   Ðindividual€defendantððs€obligations€to€Maximus.€€The€claims€here€areÐ à0  Ðthus€subject€to€arbitration€unless€they€fall€within€the€specificÐ pÀ  Ðcarve€out€that€was€placed€in€the€arbitration€agreement.Ð P  Ðà  àAs€indicated€above,€and€recited€above,€there€is€such€a€carveÐ à Ðout€for€injunctive€actions€and€the€carve€out€is€explicit€and€clear,Ð  p Ðto€this€Court,€that€provides€that€in€Section€4.11€of€the€agreement;Ð ° Ðthat€ð ðnotwithstanding€the€foregoing,€the€provisions€of€this€sectionÐ @ Ðdo€not€require€arbitration€of€any€claim€for€injunctive€reliefÐ Ð  Ðwithin€the€scope€of€Paragraph€(b)€of€Section€4.3€above.ðð€€SectionÐ `"° Ð4.3(b)€recognizes,€first,€that€„„€and€concedes€that€there€will€beÐ ð#@ Ðirreparable€damage,€injury€and€damage,€to€the€corporation€andÐ €%Ð  Ðprovides€that€the€corporation€maintain€such€preliminary,€temporary,Ð '`" Ðor€permanent€mandatory€restraining€injunction,€orders€or€decrees,Ð  (ð# Ðas€may€be€necessary€to€protect€it€against,€or€on€account€of€anyÐ 0*€% Ðbreach€of€Section€2.1€and€2.2.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€individual€defendants€have€argued€that€that€carve€outÐ @ Ðshould€fall,€for€practical€reasons€of€judicial€economy,€and€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€overall€spirit€of€the€arbitration€clause€can€be€met€by€denyingÐ ` ° ÐMaximus€the€right€to€proceed€with€injunctive€action€in€this€case.Ð ð @ Ðà  àThe€Court€believes€that€that€concern€can€be€taken€up€as€aÐ € Ð Ðmatter€of€how€this€litigation€should€proceed,€but€the€CourtÐ `  Ðdiscerns€no€basis,€under€interpretation€of€this€arbitrationÐ  ð  Ðprovision,€that€would,€in€any€way,€restrain,€or€restrict,€or€limitÐ 0€  ÐMaximus€in€pursuing€its€injunctive€relief.€€It€couldnððt€be€clearer.Ð À  ÐIt€is€an€explicit€expressed€carve€out€that€allows€Maximus€toÐ P   Ðproceed€with€injunctive€action.€€Therefore,€matters€that€areÐ à0  Ðincluded€within€the€request€for€injunctive€relief€are€carved€out,Ð pÀ  Ðand€are€not€subject€to€being€referred€for€arbitration,€and€asÐ P  Ðindicated,€the€Court€will€separately€take€up€whether€otherÐ à Ðprudential€reasons€may€require€a€stay€of€those€claims.Ð  p Ðà  àThe€Court€will,€therefore,€grant€either€„„€and€Iððll€hear€fromÐ ° Ðthe€parties€further€on€this€„„€either€a€Motion€to€Dismiss,€or€aÐ @ ÐMotion€to€Stay,€Counts€I,€III€to€VI,€because€of€the€requirements€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€arbitration€provision€of€the€Executive€Employment€Non„CompetingÐ `"° ÐConfidentiality€Agreement.Ð ð#@ Ðà  àThe€Court€will€òònotóó€require€arbitration€as€to€matters€containedÐ €%Ð  Ðin€Count€X,€ð ðBreach€of€Employment€Contractðð€by€Fabian€and€Hoffman,Ð '`" Ðsince€that€is€covered€by€the€carve„out.Ð  (ð# Ðà  àÔ€XvXXXvÔÐ 0*€% ÐÓÓOctober€12,€2004à  àà h àà À àà  àòò________________________________óóÐ ° Ðà  àà ` à€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€Dennis€M.€SweeneyÐ xÈ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€JUDGE