Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1385
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:14cv01877SB)
Argued:
December 9, 2015
Decided:
home
in
Hilton
Head,
South
Carolina.
The
agreement
the
primary
goal
in
enforcing
an
arbitration
fundamental
differences
between
bilateral
and
class
that
whether
parties
agree
courts
summary
judgment,
petition,
determine
and
order
vacate
remand
whether
denying
the
the
the
case
to
arbitration
is
arbitration
arbitration.
class
the
motion
for
partial
dismissing
Pultes
district
clause
court
permits
to
class
I.
The relevant facts are not in dispute.
Section 4.3 of
September
2008,
the
Carlsons
filed
suit
in
South
raised
several
construction defects.
claims,
all
regarding
The
alleged
alternative,
Carlsons claims.
to
compel
bilateral
arbitration
of
the
Their demand
amount
certified.
at
$75,000
J.A. 86.
until
such
time
as
the
Class
is
the parties that the arbitrator would decide whether the sales
agreement permits class arbitration.
Three days later, Pulte filed in federal court a Petition
and Complaint to Compel Bilateral Arbitration (Petition) under
4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
As relevant here, Pulte argued that whether the sales agreement
court
to
arbitrator.
determinenot
Pulte
sought
a
a
procedural
declaratory
question
judgment
for
the
that
the
in
the
district
court,
including
Pultes
motion
meantime,
the
arbitrator
ruled
that
the
sales
for
In
agreement
court
and
this
court
resulted
in
stay
of
the
and
dismissed
the
Petition.
Courts
plurality
decision
Bazzle,
539
444
U.S.
in
(2003),
Relying
on
the
Greentree
Financial
and
courts
this
Supreme
Corp.
v.
unpublished
clause
permits
interpretation
class
issue,
arbitration
and
because
is
the
simple
question
the
threshold
inquiry
is
question
for
the
II.
We review a district courts grant of summary judgment de
novo.
Cir. 2002).
A.
We turn first to the Carlsons contention that we should
dismiss
the
appealand
that
the
district
court
should
have
contending
is
not
met
geographically diverse.
that
and
the
that
amount-in-controversy
the
parties
are
not
In considering a
suit
of
to
amount
compel
may
be
arbitration,
determined
by
the
question
reference
to
the
jurisdictional
possible
award
Paul D. Comanduras & Assocs., 973 F.2d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 1992).
The
Carlsons
amended
complaint
and
demand
for
arbitration,
$75,000,
plus
treble
damages
and
attorneys
fees,
which
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 368 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating
that
attorneys
calculation
when
fees
count
the
towards
contract
the
provides
amount-in-controversy
for
them);
J.A.
40
See 28 U.S.C.
Mercury
U.S.
Constr.
Corp.,
460
1,
20
(1983)
(calling
for
the
Class
Action
Fairness
Act
of
2005
(CAFA),
which
actions
with
an
amount
in
controversy
greater
than
28 U.S.C.
(determining
arbitration
of
class-action
over
claims);
a
see
petition
also
to
compel
U.S.C.
court
when
the
court
would
have
jurisdiction
under
through
jurisdiction
would
Pultes
be
FAA
proper.
petition,
Vaden,
556
we
find
U.S.
at
And in
federal
62.
As
Although Pulte
seeks
only
bilateral
arbitration,
the
substantive
matter
the
amended
complaint
attached
to
the
Carlsons
federal
jurisdiction
over
the
matter
because
the
U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,
416 (1923).
and
of
several
our
sister
circuits
interpreted
the
Rooker
redress
for
an
injury
allegedly
caused
by
the
state
F.3d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)).
Moreover, the
disputes
the
availability
of
class
arbitration
Rather,
under
the
sales agreement and the proper forum for deciding that issue,
questions that were never litigated in the state court. 3
Last,
federal
the
Carlsons
subject-matter
argue
that
jurisdiction
Pulte
through
cannot
the
establish
FAA.
Pulte,
however, has never contended that the district court had federal
question jurisdiction based on the FAA, acknowledging, as it
must, that the FAA does not create any independent federalquestion
jurisdiction
but
rather
only
permits
the
federal
of
citizenship
or
some
other
independent
basis.
oral
argument,
the
Carlsons
pressed
the
purported
an
provides
aggrieved
a
remedy
party
only
under
where
the
a
FAA
party
because
is
the
aggrieved
statute
by
the
9 U.S.C. 4.
The
Rather, it is a question
purpose
of
the
FAA
is
to
The central or
ensure
that
private
express
agreement.
Stolt-Nielsen
S.A.
v.
AnimalFeeds
Intl Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 682, 684 (2010) (quoting Volt Info.
Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
489
U.S.
468,
479
(1989)).
Here,
Pulte
is
sufficiently
(en
banc)
(rejecting
appellants
non-arbitrability
11
arbitration
confers
in
only
arbitration
the
abstract[;
the
right
proceed
in
to
r]ather, . . .
obtain
the
an
manner
order
of
the
directing
provided
for
in
FAA
that
[the
district
court
judgment,
denied
concluding
Pultes
that
the
motion
for
partial
inquirywhether
an
the
FAA,
arbitration
agreements
are
valid,
9 U.S.C.
2.
favoring
Despite
this
liberal . . . .
federal
policy
agreements,
careful
to
avoid
forcing
parties
to
12
contract
([T]he
formation.
FAA
imposes
E.g.,
certain
Stolt-Nielsen,
rules
of
559
U.S.
fundamental
at
681
importance,
not
coercion.
(quoting
Volt,
489
U.S.
at
479));
&
Gulf
Nav.
Co.,
363
U.S.
574,
582
(1960)));
First
Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 945 (1995) ([A]
party
can
be
forced
to
arbitrate
only
those
issues
it
the
application
of
statutes
of
limitations,
notice
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 557 (1964)
(Once it is determined . . . that the parties are obligated to
submit
the
subject
matter
of
dispute
to
arbitration,
13
The
Court has explained that these are questions for the arbitrator
not
only
because
the
parties
would
likely
expect
that
an
arbitrators
underlying
power,
see
AT&T
Techs.,
Inc.
v.
of
else
arbitrability,
entirely.
When
on
the
the
other
answer
to
hand,
a
are
question
on
the
merits,
that
question
necessarily
falls
W.,
Inc.
([Q]uestion[s]
regarding
the
of
v.
Jackson,
561
arbitrability
existence
of
U.S.
thus
legally
63,
include
binding
78
(2010)
questions
and
valid
whether
an
arbitration
agreement
provides
for
class
First,
14
v. Bazzle found that the issue was a procedural one for the
arbitrator, 539 U.S. at 45253, the Courts treatment of Bazzle
in
subsequent
decisions
has
effectively
disavowed
that
had
argued
below
that
the
availability
of
are
presumptively
for
courts
to
class
Those
decide.);
parties
appear
to
have
believed
that
the
judgment
in
decided
that
question.
added)
(citation
omitted)).
Second, the Court over several decades has crafted legal
rules regarding
the
interpretation
of
arbitration
agreements,
the
parties
clearly
15
and
unmistakably
provide
otherwise.
First
Options
of
Chicago,
Inc.
v.
Kaplan,
the
Court
should
not
arbitrability
evidence.
assume
absent
that
the
clea[r]
parties
and
agreed
to
unmistakabl[e]
Court
International
in
Corp.
Stolt-Nielsen
took
its
S.A.
refusal
to
v.
AnimalFeeds
force
unwilling
arbitration
agreement
found
class-action
that
permits
class
arbitration.
arbitration
changes
The
the
Court
nature
of
consented
to
it
by
disputes to an arbitrator.
simply
agreeing
Id. at 685.
16
to
submit
their
Id. at 684.
class
arbitration
presents
question
as
to
regard,
the
Court
has
highlighted
the
the
In
significant
differences
confirm
that
whether
an
agreement
benefits
procedural
flowing
from
formalities,
confidentiality,
greater
that
lower
efficiency,
decision:
costs,
specialized
less
rigorous
privacy
and
adjudicators,
17
Div. Pension Fund v. Bombardier Inc., 546 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir.
2008).
The
FAA,
however,
provides
very
limited
grounds
for
interpreted
to
prohibit
parties
from
contractually
result,
arbitration
[t]he
makes
uncorrected.
350 (2011).
it
absence
more
of
likely
multilayered
that
review
errors
will
in
go
to
outweighed
the
by
size
savings
of
individual
from
avoiding
disputes,
the
and
courts.
presumably
Id.
But
of
accept.
class
arbitration
that
Id. at 351.
18
defendants
would
not
lightly
This
is
because
the
on
the
merits,
whether
ruling
whether
the
named
parties
arbitrator
satisfy
to
must
determine,
certify
mandatory
the
class,
standards
of
bilateral
arbitration
begun
between
January
and
filing
to
resolutionthrough
settlement,
withdrawal,
or
and
unmistakably
provide
otherwise,
whether
an
for
Div.
(quoting
v.
the
court.
Crockett,
Howsam,
537
Reed
734
U.S.
Elsevier,
F.3d
at
594,
83)
Inc.
59799
(reasoning
ex
rel.
(6th
Cir.
that
the
19
court,
and
observations
of
focusing
the
on
Stolt-Nielsen
fundamental
differences
and
Concepcions
between
bilateral
an
implicates
agreements
both
authorization
whose
claims
and
of
the
class
type
of
arbitration
controversy
an
flows
logically
from
our
own
cases.
In
Central
West
Since then,
Suppa,
861
Turner,
91
F.
No.
Supp.
3d
5:14CV97,
853,
slip.
op.
2015).
20
(N.D.W.
at
*7
Va.
2015);
(N.D.W.
Va.
Bird
v.
Sept.
1,
an
arbitration
panel
in
Richmond,
Virginia,
or
in
notably,
these
decisions
do
not
challenge
the
See
Marrowbone Dev. Co. v. Dist. 17, United Mine Workers of Am., 147
F.3d 296, 300 (4th Cir. 1998) ([T]he court decides, as issues
of contract law, the threshold questions of whether a party is
contractually bound to arbitrate and whether, if so bound, the
arbitration
provisions
arbitrable.).
arbitrability
scope
makes
the
issue
in
dispute
arbitrator to decide.
is
not
an
issue
presumptively
for
the
Tool Supply, Inc., 984 F.2d 113, 117 (4th Cir. 1993) (finding
21
typical,
broad
arbitration
clause
does
not
meet
that
standard).
In reaching its contrary result, the district court relied
on
our
unpublished
decision
in
Davis
v.
ECPI
College
that
[t]he
question
of
what
kind
of
of
There, we
arbitration
Id. at 253.
But Davis
Given
III.
In this case, the parties did not unmistakably provide that
the arbitrator would decide whether their agreement authorizes
class arbitration.
that
the
was
procedural
one
for
the
22
judgment
dismissing
proceedings.
On
the
remand,
Petition,
the
and
district
remand
court
for
shall
further
determine
23