|
Since a Ninth Circuit court can order arbitration only within its district, a federal district court in California ordered arbitration within its district even though the arbitration agreement called for arbitration in Mississippi.
In Larson v. Speetjeens, No. C 05-3176 SBA, 2006 WL 3365589 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2006), Larson sought an order from the court clarifying an earlier order compelling arbitration because the parties disagreed over where the arbitration was to take place.
The arbitration clause called for arbitration in Mississippi, but the Ninth Circuit has held that section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) limits courts to compelling arbitration in the district where the suit was initially filed. See Continental Grain v. Dant & Russell, 118 F.2d 967, 968-69 (9th Cir. 1941).
Based on this Ninth Circuit rule, the Court could only compel arbitration in the Northern District of California because Larson initially filed suit in that district. Even though Speetjeens filed another suit in Mississippi, that suit was transferred to California under the first-to-file rule. The Court thus ordered the parties to arbitrate in California.
The majority view has interpreted section 4 of the FAA to mean that when parties have agreed to arbitrate in a particular forum, only courts in that forum have authority to compel arbitration. See Ansari v. Qwest Commc’ns Corp., 414 F.3d 1214, 1218-21 (10th Cir. 2005). Under this rule, only a Mississippi court would have authority to order arbitration of disputes arising from the parties’ agreement.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|