This segment of the Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide discusses the provisions of Section 4 relating to the jury trial of arbitrability issues.
The last instalment discussed the following FAQs related to Section 4 applications to compel arbitration:
How does a Federal Court “Hear” an Application to Compel Arbitration?
In what Federal Court may an Application to Compel Arbitration be Filed?
This segment addresses the FAQ “What Happens when a Court Determines there is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Concerning the Making of the Arbitration Agreement or the Failure, Neglect, or Refusal to Perform that Agreement?”
What Happens when a Court Determines there is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Concerning the Making of the Arbitration Agreement or the Failure, Neglect, or Refusal to Perform that Agreement?
In the last postwe explained that district courts adjudicate applications to compel by applying a standard akin to that which applies to summary judgment motions. Courts therefore ascertain whether there are any genuine issues of material fact in dispute. If the material facts are not in dispute, then the Court determines whether the motion should be granted or denied by applying the law to the undisputed facts.
Today we’re going to focus on Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes a Court to stay litigation.
In the last segment of this series we answered the following FAQs about how gateway disputes are decided by courts and arbitrators:
What is the Presumption of Arbitrability?
Does the Presumption of Arbitrability Apply to all Questions of Arbitrability?
What Law Applies to Determine Gateway Disputes about Arbitrability to which the Presumption of Arbitrability does not Apply?
How is the Presumption of Arbitrability Applied to Resolve Gateway Questions about the Scope of an Arbitration Agreement?
What Defenses, if any, Can Parties Assert against Enforcement of an Arbitration Agreement, and what Law Governs these Defenses?
The answers to these questions, along with those provided in prior segments, were designed to provide you with a solid foundation for understanding how pre-award Federal Arbitration Act litigation works and what to expect if your business is or becomes embroiled in it.
The segment of which this post is Part I answers FAQs about the nuts and bolts of pre-award Federal Arbitration Act practice and procedure under Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, the Sections that address gateway disputes about whether arbitration should proceed.
In this Part I we address the following FAQs, which focus on Section 3 stays of litigation:
What Gateway Disputes do Sections 2, 3, and 4, Address, and How do they Address them?
How does Section 3 Work in Practice?
Future parts of this segment will address questions concerning Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes courts to compel arbitration. And we’ll move forward from there.
What Gateway Disputes do Sections 2, 3, and 4, Address, and How do they Address them?
Section 2, as we’ve said, is the enforcement command of the Federal Arbitration Act, which deems all arbitration agreements falling within its scope to be “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. (See here and here.) Section 2 requires, as a matter of federal law, that arbitration agreements falling within its scope are to be enforced to the same extent as contracts generally. (See here.)
But the Federal Arbitration Act does more than require the enforcement of arbitration agreements by putting them on “an equal footing with all other contracts.” Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421, 1424 (2017) (quotations and citations omitted). It provides for specific performance of arbitration agreements, both in the form of an order staying litigation of an arbitrable controversy under Section 3 of the FAA, and an order directing a party to proceed with arbitration in accordance with their agreement. 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 & 4.
Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Please see also the information and links set forth on each footer page of the The Loree Law Firm website of which this blog is a part (http://www.loreelawfirm.com), and in the disclaimer that appears in the bottom right corner of each post page of this blog.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Loree Law Firm or any of its current or former clients.
