Arbitration is a product of contract. Parties are not required to arbitrate their disagreements unless they have agreed to do so. A contract to arbitrate will not be inferred absent a "clear agreement." When determining whether a valid contract to arbitrate exists, [courts] apply ordinary state law principles that govern contract formation. (Citations omitted.) Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 755 F. 3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement. Id. § 3. The FAA limits the district court's role to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and whether the agreement encompasses the disputes at issue. See Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000). Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F. 3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014).
Until a court determines whether arbitration should be compelled, [ ] judicial review is limited to two threshold questions: "(1) Did the parties seeking or resisting arbitration enter into a valid arbitration agreement? (2) Does the dispute between those parties fall with the language of the arbitration agreement?" John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Olick, 151 F.3d 132, 137 (3d Cir.1998). CardioNet, Inc. v. Cigna Health Corp., 751 F. 3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2014).
Section 16 of the FAA allows for appeals from, inter alia, orders confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award, orders modifying, correcting, or vacating an award, and a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). It is well established that an order confirming an arbitration award is a final appealable order. Id. § 16(a)(1)(D). It is also well established that an order vacating an award and remanding the case back to arbitration for a rehearing is a final appealable order. See Atl. Aviation, Inc. v. EBM Grp., Inc., 11 F.3d 1276, 1280 (5th Cir.1994) overruled on other grounds by Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 341 n. 10 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that under the FAA "orders which vacate awards and direct a rehearing of the arbitration dispute... are appealable"). Murchison Capital Partners. v. Nuance Comm's, 760 F. 3d 418 (5th Cir. 2014).
Although the FAA generally preempts inconsistent state laws and governs all aspects of arbitrations concerning "transaction[s] involving commerce," parties may agree to abide by state rules of arbitration, and "enforcing those rules according to the terms of the agreement is fully consistent with the goals of the FAA." (Citations omitted.) Savers Property v. National Union Fire Ins., 748 F. 3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014)
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 37 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. The selection of decisions spans from January 2013 to the date of publication.