Should I Stay or Should I Go: Supreme Court to Consider Whether Federal Courts Can Dismiss or Must Stay Cases Pending Arbitration

On January 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith, et al. v. Spizzirri, et al., No. 22-1218 to consider whether a district court must stay a case — rather than dismiss it — when presented with an enforceable arbitration agreement. The Court’s review will likely resolve a split among the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal on this issue.

In Spizzirri, a group of delivery driver plaintiffs sued their employer in an Arizona state court, alleging numerous violations of state and federal employment laws. After the defendant removed the case to federal court, it sought to compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit altogether. The parties ultimately agreed that all claims under the lawsuit were subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs, however, strongly opposed dismissal of their suit and argued that the matter must be stayed according to the plain language of Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Section 3 provides that, if an issue is subject to arbitration, the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement . . . ” 9 U.S.C.A. § 3 (emphasis added). Despite this language, the District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

On appeal, a panel for the Ninth Circuit considered “whether the [FAA] requires a district court to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether a district court has discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration” and affirmed the dismissal. The Ninth Circuit evaluated the split in authority within the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The First, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits follow the minority view and have ruled that the FAA affords district courts the discretion to dismiss, rather than stay, lawsuits pending arbitration. The majority approach, followed by the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, requires district courts to stay a case when presented with a valid arbitration agreement. The Ninth Circuit ultimately sided with the minority view.

The Supreme Court’s decision will impact strategic choices and procedures surrounding arbitration. When a case is stayed pending arbitration, rather than dismissed, there is no immediate right to appeal the order compelling arbitration. Unless a discretionary appeal is permitted, the party seeking to challenge the order compelling arbitration generally must wait until the arbitration is resolved. In contrast, a dismissal is a final decision subject to immediate appeal. As some appellate courts have recognized, a stay (compared to a dismissal) more effectively transitions arbitrable claims out of federal litigation. An immediate appeal, when exercised, can delay arbitration, increase litigation costs, and promote gamesmanship. These run counter to the legislative purpose of the FAA, which was enacted in response to the delay and expense of litigation. A dismissal also divests federal courts of jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an award, forcing prevailing parties to instead pursue enforcement in state courts, which can be tedious and require additional costs that would otherwise be avoided.

With this granting of cert in Spizzirri, the Supreme Court signals its continued interest in arbitration-related issues. Spizzirri marks the thirdFAA-related case the Supreme Court will hear this term alone, with the Court having considered several petitions for arbitration-related issues over the past several years. This term, the Supreme Court will also evaluate the FAA’s exemption for transportation workers in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, and whether a court or an arbitrator should decide certain arbitration issues in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski. Oral arguments in Spizzirri are scheduled for April 22, 2024. Subscribe to Foley’s Consumer Class Defense Counsel blog to stay current on these and related developments impacting arbitration considerations.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.