|
When a motion to compel arbitration is brought in separate proceedings in a different court than a related action to stay litigation, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it possesses jurisdiction to consider an otherwise "interlocutory" appeal of a district court order granting a motion to compel arbitration.
In 3M Co. v. Amtex Security, Inc., No. 07-3519, 2008 WL 4205761 (8th Cir. Sept. 16, 2008), 3M and Amtex entered into service contracts, with one subcontract containing a broadly-worded arbitration agreement. After a dispute arose over the scope of Amtex’s duties, 3M terminated the contract. When 3M refused to reimburse Amtex for expenses allegedly incurred under the contract, Amtex brought a breach of contract suit against 3M in a Texas federal district court.
In response, 3M filed a motion to compel arbitration in a Minnesota federal district court. Amtex responded by amending its complaint to include various tort and statutory claims. 3M then filed a motion to stay proceedings in the Texas court. The Texas court granted the motion to stay pending the Minnesota court’s resolution of the motion to compel. The Minnesota court granted the motion to compel arbitration of all claims.
On appeal from the order granting 3M’s motion to compel, Amtex argued that its tort and statutory claims were not arbitrable. 3M opposed, alleging that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to compel. In the alternative, 3M argued that the court correctly determined that the broad agreement encompassed all of Amtex’s claims.
The Court first determined that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the Minnesota court had correctly determined the scope of the arbitration agreement. Specifically, the Court agreed with the rationale of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits that "when a motion to compel arbitration and a motion for a stay are brought separately, they should be treated individually, and the resulting order compelling arbitration is final and appealable." See, e.g., Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 1994); S+L+H S.p.A. v. Miller-St. Nazianz, Inc., 988 F.2d 1518, 1522-23 (7th Cir. 1993).
Because the underlying complaint and motion to compel were brought in two separate actions in different district courts, and neither party attempted to join or transfer the matters, the Court found it necessarily was vested with jurisdiction to consider the question presented here.
On the merits, the Court determined that the broad language in the parties'arbitration agreement did in fact encompass all of Amtex’s claims, noting that each claim in the amended complaint rested on factual allegations regarding the scope of services, costs, and payments under the contract. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of all of Amtex’s claims against 3M.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|