Title: Dennis v. Jack Dennis Sports, Inc.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JACK DENNIS, JR., and SNAKE RIVER FISHING TRIPS, INC. v. JACK DENNIS SPORTS, INC., A Wyoming Corporation2011 WY 96Case Number: S-11-0140Decided: 06/22/2011
April 
Term, A.D. 2011

 
 

JACK 
DENNIS, JR., and SNAKE RIVER FISHING TRIPS, INC.,Appellants 
(Defendants),v.JACK DENNIS SPORTS, INC., A Wyoming 
Corporation,Appellee (Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 

 

[¶1]      This 
matter came before 
the Court upon its own motion following a review of recently docketed 
appeals.  After a careful review of 
the file, this Court finds that the captioned appeal should be dismissed, for 
the following reasons.  

 
 
[¶2]      This is an appeal 
from two district court orders, (1) an "Order Regarding Motions Related to 
Arbitration" and (2) a "Decision and Order Over-Ruling and Denying Any Requested 
Relief Regarding Defendants' Objections to Order Regarding Motions Related to 
Arbitration."  In the first order, 
the district court granted Appellee's motion to compel arbitration and stayed 
district court proceedings.  In the 
second order, the district court overruled objections to the first order.  

 
 
[¶3]      The question here 
is whether the order compelling arbitration is a final, appealable order.  Although there is no published authority 
from this Court on this question, there is abundant authority from other 
jurisdictions.  See Annotation, 
Appealability of state court's order or decree compelling or refusing to 
compel arbitration, 6 ALR 4th 652 (1981).  In discussing the issue, this Court will 
examine Wyoming court rules, Wyoming statutes, and the Federal Arbitration 
Act.   

 
 
[¶4]      The Court must 
first examine W.R.A.P. 1.05, which defines which orders are appealable.  That rule provides in pertinent 
part:  

 
 
W.R.A.P. 
1.05.  Appealable order 
defined.

An 
appealable order is:

(a) 
An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, 
determines the action and prevents a judgment; or

(b) 
An order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding; 

 
 
Under 
subsection (a), the order compelling arbitration did not "determine the action," 
inasmuch as the district court proceedings are stayed.  As the Arkansas Supreme Court has 
written:

 
 
We 
conclude that the trial court's order did not in effect determine the action or 
discontinue it. The matter has merely been referred to arbitration and the 
appellant can obtain review of the arbitration decision and raise the very 
question presented here, whether the trial court was right in referring the case 
to arbitration. If we permit an appeal from every order referring a case to 
arbitration, the policy favoring arbitration would be frustrated, and we would 
be twice reviewing a case.

 
 

Chem-Ash, 
Inc. v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 
751 S.W.2d 353, 354 (Ark. 1988).  
Next, under 

Rule 
1.05(b), an order compelling arbitration may affect a substantial right.  However, this case does not involve a 
special proceeding.  This is a 
typical civil action, a contract dispute.  
Thus, we conclude that the order compelling arbitration is not an 
appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05.

 
 
[¶5]      Next, we examine 
Wyoming's Uniform Arbitration Act, Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 1-36-101 et seq.  That Act includes the following 
provision, which governs appeals:

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann § 1-36-119.  
Appeals.

(a) 
An appeal may be taken from:

(i) 
An order denying the application to compel arbitration;

(ii) 
An order granting an application to stay arbitration;

(iii) 
An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;

(iv) 
An order modifying or correcting an award;

(v) 
An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; 
or

(vi) 
A final judgment or decree entered by the court.

(b) 
The appeal shall be taken in the manner of a civil action.

 
 

[¶6]      Absent from this 
statute is a provision authorizing an appeal from an order compelling 
arbitration.  Without such an 
authorization, we conclude that the order compelling arbitration is not 
appealable.  This conclusion is 
supported by a number of cases interpreting "appeals" provisions similar to the 
one found in Wyoming's Uniform Arbitration Act.  Clark County v. Empire Elec., 604 P.2d 352 (Nev.1980); Bluffs, Inc. v. 
Wysocki, 314 S.E.2d 291 (N.C. Ct.App. 1984); Chem-Ash, Inc. v. Arkansas Power & Light 
Co., 751 S.W.2d 353, 354 (Ark. 1988); Maietta v. Greenfield, 297 A.2d 244, 248 
(Md. 1972); Roeder v. Huish, 467 P.2d 902 (1970); Old Rochester Regional Teacher's Club v. Old 
Rochester Regional School Dist., 463 N.E.2d 581 (Mass.App.Ct. 1984); Fayette County Farm Bureau Federation v. 
Martin, 758 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.Ct.App. 1988); Frontier Materials, Inc. v. Boulder, 663 P.2d 1065, 1066 (Colo.Ct.App. 1983); Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 857 P.2d 532, 534 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993) (order 
compelling arbitration not appealable "even if the court's order determines the 
substantive issue of the arbitrability of the underlying 
dispute.")

 
 
[¶7]      Finally, we note 
that, under the "Appeals" provision of the Federal Arbitration Act, an appeal 
from an interlocutory order compelling arbitration is expressly prohibited. 
 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(3).  See Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal 
Co., 977 P.2d 769, 773-74 (Ariz. 1999) 
("Each state is free to apply its own procedural requirements so long as those 
procedures do not defeat the purposes of the" FAA.)  McClellan v. Barrath Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) ("Although 9 U.S.C. § 2 creates substantive 
rights to be enforced in state courts, the procedural provisions of the 
Federal Arbitration Act are not binding on state courts, Southland Corp., 465 U.S.  at 16, 104 S. Ct.  at 861, provided applicable state procedures do not defeat the rights 
granted by Congress.")  

 
 
[¶8]      Based on the 
foregoing, this Court concludes that the district court's "Order Regarding 
Motions Related to Arbitration" is not an appealable order, nor is the "Decision 
and Order Over-Ruling and Denying Any Requested Relief Regarding Defendants' 
Objections to Order Regarding Motions Related to Arbitration."  It is, therefore, 

 
 

[¶9]      ORDERED 
that the captioned 
appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed. 

 
 

[¶10]   DATED this 22nd day of June, 20

 

BY THE COURT:                                                                       

MARILYN S. KITE                                                                      

Chief 
Justice