{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:118-f-4th-663","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:118-f-4th-663)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-28","fingerprint":"ewai:us:4b7993","proof":"sha256:9c31dff4ad729941084a994703f6bf342c55daf2131448a4468587bfbdc8c669","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:118-f-4th-663","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"for the Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Cure & Associates, P.C.; Premier Wealth & Retirement","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Management, L.L.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Plaintiffs—Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"versus","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"LPL Financial LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Defendant—Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"for the Eastern District of Texas","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"USDC No. 1:22-CV-311","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Before Jones, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"This case concerns whether nonsignatories to an arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"agreement may nonetheless be compelled to arbitrate under state-law","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"equitable estoppel principles. Defendant-Appellant LPL Financial LLC","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"(LPL) and Eileen Cure, not a party to this appeal, entered agreements","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"allowing Cure to act as a registered representative under LPL’s investment","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"broker-dealer umbrella. Those agreements contained provisions binding","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"LPL and Cure to arbitrate disputes arising out of their relationship. When","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"LPL terminated its relationship with Cure after determining she violated","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"FILED","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"October 1, 2024","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Lyle W. Cayce","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Clerk","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"LPL’s policies and code of conduct, Cure and two companies she","paragraph_id":"para_36","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"independently owns—Cure & Associates, P.C., and Premier Wealth and","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Retirement Management, LLC—each alleged claims against LPL. LPL","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"moved to compel arbitration. The district court granted the motion as to","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Cure but denied it as to her companies because they were not signatories to","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"the arbitration agreements. The court also declined to stay the action,","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"allowing the companies’ claims against LPL to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"LPL appeals, contending that under California and Texas law","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"equitable estoppel principles prevent Cure’s companies from avoiding the","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"arbitration provisions. We agree, and therefore reverse the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"denial of LPL’s motion to compel arbitration as to their claims. Likewise, we","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"vacate the district court’s order denying a stay of the litigation. We remand","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"for the court to compel arbitration of Cure’s companies’ claims and to enter","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"a stay pending arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Eileen Cure is a licensed investment advisor and certified public","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"accountant. Until August 2021, she was registered as a broker with the","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). From 2018 to 2021, Cure","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"was an independent contractor and registered representative of LPL. LPL is","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"the largest independent broker-dealer in the United States and a FINRA","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"member firm. When Cure contracted with LPL, she brought along her book","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"of business, which grew from approximately $40 million to $56 million","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"during her association with LPL. Cure contracted with LPL in her individual","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"capacity, and the resulting arrangement was terminable at will by either party.","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"At the outset of their relationship, Cure and LPL executed a","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Representative Agreement, and a Uniform Application for Securities","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Industry Regulation or Transfer (Form U4). These documents delineated","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"that Cure would serve “as a limited agent to solicit purchases of securities","paragraph_id":"para_67","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"and investments offered through LPL in its capacity as broker/dealer.” Cure","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"agreed to “conform to the established customs, standards and policies and","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"procedures of the securities industry and LPL,” which, among other things,","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"prohibit “employment discrimination against any employee, financial","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"professional, or applicant based on any legal protected status.” And she","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"agreed not to “engage in any outside business activity without prior written","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"notification and approval from LPL.”1 The provision in the Representative","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Agreement governing Cure’s “outside business activity” comports with","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"FINRA Rule 3270, which requires written notification of such activity to","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"FINRA.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Shortly after starting work with LPL, Cure submitted several","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"“Outside Business Activity Notification Forms,” including forms for Cure","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"& Associates, P.C. (Associates) and Premier Wealth & Retirement","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Management, LLC (Premier), Appellees here. Cure is the sole owner and","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"operator of both Associates and Premier. Cure formed Premier specifically","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"to conduct her business with LPL, including by using Premier as the vehicle","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"for receiving fees and commissions as detailed in the Representative","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Agreement. Associates shared employees, clients, and office space with","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Premier.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Both the Representative Agreement and Form U4 contain similar","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"provisions requiring the parties to arbitrate “any and all disputes, claims or","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"controversies relating to [Cure’s] association with or termination from","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"LPL.” Per the Representative Agreement, Cure agreed that such disputes","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"1 According to FINRA, an “outside business activity” is one in which a","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"representative receives or reasonably expects to receive compensation from any business","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"activity “outside the scope of the relationship with his or her member firm.” FINRA","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Rule 3270, Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons (2015).","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"“shall be arbitrated in accordance with FINRA rules,” and “include, but are","paragraph_id":"para_99","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"not limited to, allegations of unlawful termination” or “sexual or racial","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"harassment or discrimination on the job.” That agreement also included a","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"choice-of-law provision stating that California law applies to any such","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"dispute; the Form U4 contains no choice-of-law designation.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"In June 2021, Cure interviewed candidates for an open receptionist","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"position at Associates’s office in Nederland, Texas. After interviewing one","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"applicant, Cure sent the following message to her office manager through","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Skype: “I specifically said no blacks. I’m not a prejudiced person, but our","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"clients are 90 percent white, and I need to cater to them, so that interview","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"was a complete waste of my time.” An Associates employee took a picture","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"of Cure’s message and posted it on TikTok, where the message went viral.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Social media users, in turn, pressured LPL to address Cure’s message.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"On August 4, 2021, following an internal investigation, LPL notified","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Cure that it was terminating its relationship with her, effective immediately.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"LPL completed a FINRA Form U5, a Uniform Termination Notice for","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"Securities Industry Registration. The Form U5 required LPL to state its","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"reason for terminating Cure: “Internal communication reflected potentially","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"racially discriminatory hiring/interviewing preferences contrary to [LPL]","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"standards of conduct. Not securities related.” LPL also sent Cure’s and","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"Premier’s clients a letter advising that Cure was “no longer licensed with","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"LPL.” In addition, LPL made statements on social media and to news outlets","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"regarding its termination of Cure.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"In August 2022, Cure, Associates, and Premier sued LPL in the","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Eastern District of Texas. Cure alleged claims for breach of contract,","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"defamation, and tortious interference with a contract, while Associates and","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Premier each alleged business disparagement. They asserted that LPL’s","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"statements on social media and to news outlets, as well as on LPL’s Form","paragraph_id":"para_130","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"U5, unlawfully disparaged them and inhibited their business. In November","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"2022, LPL moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action under","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(3),2 contending that the","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"arbitration provisions in the Representative Agreement and Form U4","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"covered all three plaintiffs’ claims and rendered federal court the wrong","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"venue.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"In January 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that omitted","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"the breach-of-contract claim and instead asserted five causes of action: Cure","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"alleged tortious interference with both existing and prospective contracts;","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Premier alleged tortious interference with prospective contracts and business","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"disparagement; and all three plaintiffs alleged defamation. Though Cure had","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"dropped her breach-of-contract claim, she “incorporate[d] the facts alleged","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"in [that] claim under her claim of tortious interference.” LPL again moved","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"to compel arbitration and to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3). LPL also moved to","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"stay any claims not compelled to arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"In its motion, LPL argued that because Cure signed the","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Representative Agreement and Form U4, she was plainly bound to arbitrate","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"her claims. LPL recognized that neither Associates nor Premier signed the","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"arbitration agreements. But LPL reasoned that arbitration of their claims was","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"nonetheless required under state-law equitable estoppel principles. In LPL’s","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"view, Associates’s and Premier’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” with","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"the agreements, thus compelling their arbitration even though the entities did","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"not sign the agreements. Alternatively, LPL asserted that Associates and","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which allows a defendant to move to","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"dismiss a claim because of improper venue, is “a proper method for seeking dismissal in","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"favor of arbitration.” McDonnel Grp., L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, UK Branch, 923 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"427, 430 n.5 (5th Cir. 2019).","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Premier directly benefited from the agreements and thus cannot now disavow","paragraph_id":"para_162","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"the agreements’ requirements, including arbitration of disputes.","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"The district court construed the Representative Agreement under","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"California law pursuant to its choice-of-law provision. As to the Form U4,","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"the court applied choice-of-law principles of Texas, as the forum state, which","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"require courts to construe contracts under the laws of the state with which","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"the parties have the “most significant relationship.” Determining that the","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"parties had the most significant relationship with Texas, the court applied","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Texas equitable estoppel principles in considering the reach of the Form","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"U4’s arbitration provision.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"The district court granted LPL’s motion to compel arbitration as to","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Cure but denied the motion as to Associates and Premier. It reasoned that","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Cure’s claims “directly related to her termination from LPL,” falling","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"squarely within the arbitration provisions. By contrast, the court concluded","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"that Associates’s and Premier’s claims sounded in tort law, not contract law.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Thus, “[w]hile [their] claims might touch on matters relating to the","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"contracts . . . Premier and Associates will not have to rely on either contract","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"to prove any elements of their claims,” rendering equitable estoppel inapt on","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"that basis. The court also analyzed whether the nonsignatory companies","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"could be compelled to arbitrate anyway because they sought and received","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"direct benefits from the contracts. The court found this theory failed too,","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"concluding that Associates and Premier neither sought nor obtained direct","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"benefits from either agreement. Thus declining to compel arbitration of the","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"entities’ claims, the district court denied LPL’s request to stay the litigation","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"during Cure’s arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"LPL appealed the partial denial of its motion. LPL also filed a motion","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"to stay proceedings pending appeal, which the district court granted.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_192","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"The main issue on appeal is whether Associates and Premier, though","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"nonsignatories, are bound by the arbitration provisions contained in LPL and","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"Cure’s Representative Agreement and Form U4. We conclude they are.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"The Fifth Circuit generally reviews de novo a district court’s denial of","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"(FAA). Noble Cap. Fund Mgmt., L.L.C. v. US Cap. Glob. Inv. Mgmt., L.L.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"31 F.4th 333, 335–36 (5th Cir. 2022). However, the court “review[s] for","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"abuse of discretion a district court’s determination of whether equitable","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"estoppel may be invoked to compel arbitration.” Bufkin Enters., L.L.C. v.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 96 F.4th 726, 729 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Auto Parts","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"Mfg. Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"2015)). “To constitute an abuse of discretion, the district court’s decision","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"must be either premised on an application of the law that is erroneous, or on","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"an assessment of the evidence that is clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Grigson","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 2000)).","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Moreover, while this court generally “review[s] de novo a denial of a motion","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"to stay a proceeding pending arbitration,” Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410,","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"417 (5th Cir. 2006), we review whether to stay nonsignatories’ litigation for","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"an abuse of discretion, see Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Cap. Mgmt., L.P.,","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"828 F.3d 356, 360–61 (5th Cir. 2016).","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Generally, under the FAA, only parties to an arbitration agreement","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"are bound by that agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 2. But there are exceptions under","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"which nonparties to an arbitration agreement may be required to arbitrate","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"claims. For instance, “traditional principles of state law may allow an","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"arbitration contract to be enforced . . . against nonparties to the contract","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"through a number of state-contract-law theories, including equitable","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"estoppel.” Crawford Pro. Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249,","paragraph_id":"para_223","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"255 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624,","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"630–31 (2009)).","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"LPL invokes two equitable estoppel theories, which it contends are","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"viable under both California and Texas law, to support that Associates and","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Premier should be compelled to arbitrate their claims. First, LPL contends","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"that the companies’ claims sound in contract, not tort, and must be arbitrated","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"because they are “inextricably intertwined” with the underlying agreements","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"between LPL and Cure. Alternatively, LPL asserts that even if their claims","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"are tortious in nature, Associates and Premier sought and obtained direct","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"benefits under the agreements, binding them to the agreements’","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"requirements, including arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"Pursuant to the Representative Agreement’s choice-of-law provision,","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"California law guides our analysis of its arbitration provision’s scope. The","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Form U4 lacks a choice-of-law provision, but whether Texas or California","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"law governs our analysis of the Form U4’s arbitration provision does not","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"change the result. Under the law of both states, Associates and Premier are","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"bound to arbitrate their claims. We examine each estoppel theory in turn.","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"We begin with LPL’s “intertwined with the contract” theory. Under","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"California law, especially when “all of the plaintiffs, signatory and","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"nonsignatory, are related entities,” “[a] nonsignatory plaintiff can be","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"compelled to arbitrate a claim . . . when the claim is itself based on, or","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"inextricably intertwined with, the contract containing the arbitration clause.”","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Ct., 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 429, 444–45 (Cal. Ct.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"App. 2011). And for present purposes, the same is true under Texas law. See","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc., 838 F.3d 605, 610–12 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"that the Supreme Court of Texas, “if faced with the question, would adopt","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"intertwined claims estoppel,” which “involves compelling arbitration when","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"a nonsignatory defendant has a close relationship with one of the signatories","paragraph_id":"para_254","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"and the claims are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"contract obligations” (cleaned up)).","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"LPL argues that Associates’s and Premier’s claims, as well as LPL’s","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"defenses, are “inextricably intertwined” with the Representative","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Agreement, requiring the companies to arbitrate their claims. Associates and","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"Premier counter that, as the district court concluded, they cannot be","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"compelled to arbitrate because their claims sound in tort, not contract. We","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"acknowledge that LPL’s reasoning has some allure given the interlocking","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"relationship of the plaintiffs and their claims. But because “direct benefits”","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"estoppel more clearly compels Associates and Premier to arbitrate their","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"claims in any event, it is unnecessary to resolve whether the plaintiffs’ claims","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"are sufficiently intertwined with Cure and LPL’s contract as to require","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Under California law, “a nonsignatory is estopped from refusing to","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"comply with an arbitration clause when it receives a direct benefit from a","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"contract containing an arbitration clause.” Pillar Project AG v. Payward","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"Ventures, Inc., 279 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117, 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (alteration","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"accepted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boucher v. Alliance","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Title Co., Inc., 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440, 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)). Texas law","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"similarly instructs that “a nonparty may be compelled to arbitrate if it","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"deliberately seeks and obtains substantial benefits from the contract”","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"containing the arbitration provision. In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"127, 132 (Tex. 2005). In assessing that question, courts “focus[] on the","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"nonparty’s conduct during the performance of the contract.” Id. at 132–33.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"LPL contends that Associates and Premier both sought and obtained","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"direct benefits from Cure’s relationship with LPL. LPL argues that, as a","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"result of the benefits the entities received from the contracts, they are now","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"equitably estopped from avoiding the burden of the contracts’ arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_285","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"provisions. The companies respond that “[t]here is not a sufficient[ly] ‘close","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"relationship’ between [Cure] and Cure & Associates, or Premier,” to sustain","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"a ruling for LPL on the direct-benefits estoppel theory. Viewing the record","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"through the lens of either California or Texas law, we agree with LPL that","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"both companies deliberately sought and received direct benefits from Cure","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"and LPL’s contractual relationship, such that their claims are subject to","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"arbitration per those underlying contracts. The district court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"concluding otherwise.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"Start with Premier. Cure formed that company specifically as a","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"vehicle to facilitate her LPL business: She filed Premier’s certificate of","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"formation the same day she signed the Representative Agreement and","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"notified LPL that Premier was a “DBA for LPL Business (entity for LPL","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Business)” for which she would spend 100% of her time working. She","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"funneled through Premier the fees and commissions she earned from her","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"relationship with LPL. Thus, Premier’s very existence derived from Cure’s","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"Representative Agreement with LPL. And Premier’s ongoing business","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"activities—and the revenue to pay its freight—sprang solely from Cure’s","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"contractual arrangement with LPL. From its conduct, which was directed by","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"Cure as its sole member, it is clear that Premier “deliberately s[ought] and","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"obtain[ed] substantial benefits from the contract.” Weekley Homes, 180","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"S.W.3d at 132. Accordingly, it must arbitrate the claims it alleges in this case.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"The result is the same for Associates. This is so despite that it was a","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"preexisting company with other business activities. As she did with Premier,","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Cure solely controlled Associates. The company shared clients, employees,","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"and offices with Premier. Cure’s contractual relationship with LPL thus had","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"the desirable and direct result of reducing Associates’ own overhead and","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"expenses. Basically, Associates and Premier leveraged a symbiotic","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"relationship, with Cure as the facilitator of both entities’ activities. Tellingly,","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"as part of the fallout from Cure’s fateful Skype message, while Associates lost","paragraph_id":"para_317","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"clients, “[t]he only clients that [it] lost were the clients that were mutual","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"[Premier] clients from LPL[.]” On these facts, we conclude that Associates,","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"like Premier, received direct benefits from Cure’s contracts with LPL, such","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"that it may not avoid the arbitration provisions of those agreements. Pillar","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"Project, 279 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 123; Weekley Homes, 180 S.W.3d at 132–33.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"Under Section 3 of the FAA, if a claim in a lawsuit is “referable to","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"arbitration under an [arbitration] agreement,” the district court “shall on","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action” pending","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3; see In re Hornbeck Offshore (1984) Corp., 981 F.2d","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"752, 754 (5th Cir. 1993). Based on its conclusion that the claims asserted by","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"Associates and Premier were not “referable to arbitration,” the district court","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"denied LPL’s request to stay litigation of the entities’ claims pending Cure’s","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"arbitration. Because we conclude that the district court erred in its","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"underlying determination of non-arbitrability, and considering that LPL","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"properly moved to stay the litigation, we vacate the district court’s order","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"denying a stay of this action pending arbitration. See, e.g., Williams v. Cigna","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"Fin. Advisors, Inc., 56 F.3d 656, 659–62 (5th Cir. 1995). On remand, the","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"district court “shall stay the trial of the action” pending arbitration of the","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"plaintiffs’ claims. 9 U.S.C. § 3.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"Even though Associates and Premier were not signatories to the","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"Representative Agreement and Form U4 between LPL and Cure, Associates","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"and Premier are equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration provisions","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"contained in those agreements. We therefore REVERSE the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"denial of the motion to compel arbitration of their claims.","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"No. 23-40519","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"Because Associates and Premier must arbitrate their claims, this","paragraph_id":"para_347","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"action must also be stayed pending arbitration. We VACATE the district","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"court’s order to the contrary.","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"Finally, we REMAND for the district court to enter an order","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"compelling arbitration and staying this action in accordance with Section 3 of","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"the FAA.","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"REVERSED AND REMANDED.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Case: 23-40519 Document: 95-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/01/2024","paragraph_id":"para_354"}],"word_count":3258,"cites":["556 U.S. 624","923 F.3d\n427","31 F.4th 333","96 F.4th 726","782 F.3d 186","210 F.3d 524","463 F.3d 410","828 F.3d 356","748 F.3d 249","838 F.3d 605","981 F.2d\n752","56 F.3d 656"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"02774cf4d5a20827f435971a83fb163356c1120be68734e8530fe7ae3c741ebd","source_url":"http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-40519-CV0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T05:49:25.984+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/118-f-4th-663","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:118-f-4th-663","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:118-f-4th-663","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:118-f-4th-663","neighbors":[{"id":"us:cadc-25-1047-2026-07-21","name":"Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. SEC","decided":"2026-07-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-25-1047-2026-07-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-25-1047-2026-07-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-25-1047-2026-07-21"},{"id":"us:ca6-24-3907-2026-06-16","name":"Eric Smith v. SEC","decided":"2026-06-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-24-3907-2026-06-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-24-3907-2026-06-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-24-3907-2026-06-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-23-10520-2026-06-11","name":"Natl Horsemen's Benevolent v. Black","decided":"2026-06-11","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-23-10520-2026-06-11","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-23-10520-2026-06-11","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-23-10520-2026-06-11"},{"id":"us:ca6-24-3907-2026-03-27","name":"Eric Smith v. SEC","decided":"2026-03-27","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-24-3907-2026-03-27","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-24-3907-2026-03-27","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-24-3907-2026-03-27"},{"id":"us:cadc-24-1348-2026-02-27","name":"Ryan Paul v. FAA","decided":"2026-02-27","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-24-1348-2026-02-27","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-24-1348-2026-02-27","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-24-1348-2026-02-27"},{"id":"us:ca11-22-13129-2026-01-16","name":"U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spartan Securities Group, LTD","decided":"2026-01-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-22-13129-2026-01-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-22-13129-2026-01-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-22-13129-2026-01-16"},{"id":"us:ca9-24-1036-2025-08-29","name":"Sodha v. Golubowski","decided":"2025-08-29","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-1036-2025-08-29","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-1036-2025-08-29","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-1036-2025-08-29"},{"id":"us:ca5-23-60626-2025-08-25","name":"Natl Assoc Priv Fund Mgr v. SEC","decided":"2025-08-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-23-60626-2025-08-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-23-60626-2025-08-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-23-60626-2025-08-25"},{"id":"us:ca11-23-13396-2025-07-25","name":"American Securities Association v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission","decided":"2025-07-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-23-13396-2025-07-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-23-13396-2025-07-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-23-13396-2025-07-25"},{"id":"us:ca11-22-13546-2025-07-10","name":"Nalco Company LLC v. Laurence Bonday","decided":"2025-07-10","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-22-13546-2025-07-10","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-22-13546-2025-07-10","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-22-13546-2025-07-10"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"02774cf4d5a20827f435971a83fb163356c1120be68734e8530fe7ae3c741ebd","recomputed_sha256":"02774cf4d5a20827f435971a83fb163356c1120be68734e8530fe7ae3c741ebd","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-29T03:52:05.110Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"}},"hash":"sha256:9c31dff4ad729941084a994703f6bf342c55daf2131448a4468587bfbdc8c669","version":"legal-2026-10-28","expires":"2026-10-30T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-28+legal-2026-10-28+2026-10-28T10:10:35","content_hash":"sha256:9c31dff4ad729941084a994703f6bf342c55daf2131448a4468587bfbdc8c669","revalidate_after":"2026-10-29T04:52:06.109Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:118-f-4th-663","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:118-f-4th-663"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:118-f-4th-663"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:118-f-4th-663"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/118-f-4th-663","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-69a563dcef1814eca69358c900476621","response_hash":"sha256:9c31dff4ad729941084a994703f6bf342c55daf2131448a4468587bfbdc8c669"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:19:11.495Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3A118-f-4th-663&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":16356}}