Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30113
CA RO LY N H AL L–W I LLI AM S, P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. L A W O F F IC E O F P A U L C . M IN IC L IE R , P L C , I nt e r ve no rPl ai nt i f

f - Appe l l ant

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 04257

B ef ore K IN G , G A R Z A , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * I n t e r v e n o rpl a i n t i f

f

– a p p e l l a n t , t h e L a w Of f i c e o f P a u lC. M i n i c l i e r , P LC , ap pe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e ntaw ar di ng hi m par t i alat t o r ne y’ s fe e s a nd cost s i n hi s at t orney’ s f ees di spu te w i t h hi s f orm er c l i en t , pl ai n t i f f

- ap pel l ee Car o l yn H al l–W i l l i am s . W e de t e r m i ne t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n de nyi ng M i n i c l i e r ’ s m o t i o n t o s t a yp r o c e e d i n g s p e n d i n ga r b i t r a t i o n , a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , we VA C A TE t he j udgm entof t he di st r i c tc our tand R E M A N D f orent r y o f

an ap pr o pr i at e o r de rr e fe r r i ng H al l–W i l l i am s a nd M i ni c l i e rt o a r bi t r at i o n a nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 13, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

P aul Minicli er , on e of th e attorn ey s in Minicli er wh o wo rk ed on Hall -Willi a ms’ s c a se 1 again st Allstate, i s referred to h erein as P aulMinicli er. 2 s t ay i ng pr o c e e di ngs pe ndi ng ar bi t r at i o n. I . B A CK GRO UND I n Se pt e m be r200 6, C ar o l yn H al l–W i l l i am s ( H al l–W i l l i am s ) r e t ai ne d t he L a w O ff

i ce o f P a u lC

. M i n i cl i er, P L C (M i n i cl i er) to rep rese n t he r i n a d i sp u te 1
w i t h he rho m e o w ne r ’ s i ns ur anc e pr o vi de r , Al l s t at e I ns ur anc e Com pa ny (A l l st at e) , c onc er ni n g d a m ages t o he rhom e c ause d by H urr i c ane K at r i na. H al l–W i l l i am s and M i n i cl i er enter ed i n t o a ret ai n er c on t ractt h at provi ded f or a 33 a % c ont i ngen cy f ee i f t he c as e s et t l ed be f or e s ui tw as f

i l ed and a 40%
con ti n ge n cy fee the rea ft er. T h e con tract furth er p rov i d ed , i n releva n t pa rt: 5
. [ I] n the ev en t e ith e r p a rty d esires to term i n a te this con tract, t erm i n ati on shallbe ef fect i ve on l y u pon rec ei pt of w ri t t en noti ce of o ne pa r t y t o t he o t he re xpre s s i ng t he de s i r e t o t e r m i nat e t he c o n tr a c t. H o w e v e r , s h o u ld I [H a ll– W illia m s ] e le c t to te r m in a te th is c ont r ac t , t he [ c ont i ngencyfee ] shal lst i l lbe d ue payabl e t o t he Law O f f i ce of P a u l C

. M i n i cl i er, P
. L
. C

. by m e up on j u dg m en tor com prom i se of

t h i s m att er. 6. I ti s f

u rt h er agreed t h at, shou l d an y an d a lldi spu t es and / or c la im s o f a n yk in d o rn a tu r e a r is in g[s ic ] u n d e ro rfr o m th is contract , I [ H al l–W i l l i am s] speci f i cal l y ag ree t h at s ai d d i spu t es and / o rc l ai m s s hal lb e s ubm i t t e d t o b i n di ng ar bi t r at i o n b e f o r e t he Loui s i ana St at e BarAss o c i at i o n, pur sua n t t o i t s r ul e s a nd procedu res. M i n i cl i er f

i l ed su i ti n federalcourt , on beh al f of H al l–W i l l i a m s, against A l l st ate i n A u gu st200 7. H al l–W i l l i am s an d M in icl i er di spu t e w h at oc curred af t er s u i t w as i n i t i ated: M i n i cl i er c on t en ds t h at i tperf orm ed su bstanti alw ork
o n H a ll– W illia m s ’ s m a tt e r , a n d H a ll– W illia m s d e n ie s th e s e co n te n tio n s . A l so att h i s t i m e, D avid B i n egar an d T i f fan y C h ri st i an — t h e t w o l aw yers w h o com pri se t h e fi rm th a t cu rr e n tlyre p re se n ts H a ll

– W il li a m s— w e re em pl oyed by M i n i c l i e ra nd wor ke d o n H al l–W i l l i am s ’ s l awsui ta ga i ns tAl l s t at e f or Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

3 M i n i cl i er. O n M a rch 7, 2 0 0 8 , B i n eg a r a n d C h ri sti a n resign ed f rom M i n i cl i er to form B i n eg a r C h ri sti a n , L L C ( B i n eg a r C h r i sti a n ). H a l l

– W i l l i a m s d ecide d to
r e ta in B in e g a rC h r is tia n a s h e rco u n s e l in h e rs u it a g a in s t A lls ta te s o m e tim e in
ea rl y M a rch 20 0 8
. H a l l

–W i l l i a m s t h en en tered i n to a re tain er co n tract w i th Bi ne ga rChr i s t i an. A f t er r et ai n i n g B i n egar C h rist ia n , H a ll

– W il li a m s m a il e d M in icli e r a letter on M ar c h 12, st at i ng: “ I have dec i ded t o r et ai n t he s er vi c es of B i negarC hri st i an and no l ongerr equi r e y ours er vi c es . Pl eas e r el eas e m y fi l e to B i negar C h ri st i an . ” H al l–W i l l i am s c l ai m s t h at s h e t erm i n ated M i n i cl i e r a s cou n sel becau se M i n i cl i er r ef u sed t o agre e t o ac o nf i de nt i alset t l em en tw i t h A l l st ate even t hough she w as am enabl e t o s uch an ar r ang em ent
. She al so al l ege s t hat M i n i cl i er t ol d h er i tw as usi n g h er c ase f or purp oses t h a t s h e bel i eves di d n ot
a d v a n c e h e rc l a i m. M i ni c l i e ri ni t i al l y o ppo sed s ubs t i t ut i o n o f c o uns e l
. H o w e ve r , a f t e rt he di st ri ctcourtrul ed i n favor of A l l st ate on a pa i r of

m ot i on s that w ere earl i er f i l ed b yM in ic li e r , M in ic li e rv o lu n t a r il ym o v e d to w it h d r a w a s H a ll

– W il li a m s ’s
c o u n s e l, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th is m o tio n . M in ic lie rth e n m o v e d to file
an i nt e r v e nt i o n c o m p l a i nto n Apr i l9 , 2 0 0 8 , s e e ki ng“ t o p r o t e c ti t s f i nanc i al i nt e r e s ta nd l i e n pr i vi l e ge und e rLo ui s i ana l aw i n the o ut c o m e o f t he l i t i gati on [
. ] ” H al l–W i l l i am s obj ect ed to t h e i n t erventi on based on t h e m eri t s of M i n i cl i er’ s c l ai m an d n oton M i n i cl i er’ s r i gh tt o i n t ervene. Th e di st ri ctco u rt gr ant e d M i n i c l i e r ’ s i n t e r v e n t i o n o n Ap r i l3 0 , e x p r e s s i n gn o o p i n i o n a s t o t he i n t erventi on ’ s m eri t s. H al l–W i l l i am s and A l l st ate s e ttled t h ei r di spu t e on M ay 13 , 200 8, f or a confi den t i alam ou n t
. I n a M ay 7 em ai lt o B i n egar C h ri st i an , P au lM i n i cl i er ref u sed t o att en d t h e set t l em en t confer en ce becau se of a m edi ati on w i t h an ot h er cl i en t ; how ever, he i n si st ed that M i n i cl i er w as du e a f u l l40% ( pl u s c ost s) of
w h a tev er se ttl em en t w a s r e a c h e d
. F oll ow i n g th i s settl em en t, the m a gistrate Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

4 ju d g e o v e rseei n g t h e m att er enter ed an order r equ i ri n g M i n i cl i er t o f i l e a fee ap pl i c at i o n b y M ay2 3 and H al l–W i l l i am s t o r e s po nd t o t he fe e a ppl i c at i o n. M i n i cl i er th en m ov ed on M a y 2 3 to stay i ts i n terv en ti on i n to the su i t, pen di n g arbi t rat i on . A l t h ou gh t h e m ot i on i s not pel l u ci d, w e r e a d it as al so
r e q u e s tin ga re fe r r a l to a r b i t r a t i o n . I n th e m e m o r a n d u m in s u p p o r t o f th is
m ot i on , M i n i cl i er cl ai m ed t h at the m ot i on t o st ay sh ou l d be gran t ed si n ce t h e fee di spu t e shou l d be referr ed to arbi t rat i on . Th e sam e day , M i n i cl er al so f i l ed
sev era lob j ection s to the m a gistrate j u d ge ’ s ord er requ i ri n g a fee a p p l i ca ti on . In t he s e ob j e c t i o ns , M i ni c l i e ra ga i n a r gue d t hatt he pr o c e e di ngs s ho ul d b e s t ay e d, p en d i n g re ferral t o a rb i tration p u rsu a n t t o M i n i cl i er’ s con tract w i th H al l–W i l l i am s. H a ll

–W il li a m s r e s p o n d e d o n J u n e 5 a n d s o u g h td e n ia l o f M in ic li e r ’s
m ot i on t o st ay by cl ai m i n g t h at the fee di spu t e w as not r eferabl e t o arbi t rat i on becau se ei t h er t h e arbi t rat i on cl au se w as un en f orceabl e du e t o t h e t erm i n ati on of M i n i cl i er’ s rep rese n tati on or, i n the altern a ti ve , th a t M i n i cl i er h a d w a i ve d i ts
r igh t to se e k a rb itra tion
. O n J u n e 2 0 , th e d istr ict co u rt d e n ied M in ic li e r ’s
m o t i o n t o s t ayi nt e rve nt i o n a nd o ve r r ul e d M i ni c l i e r ’ s o bj e c t i o ns t o t he
m agi st r at e j udge’ s or der ; M i ni c l i er ’ s ar bi t r at i on cont ent i ons , al ong w i t h se ver al ot h er obj ect i on s, w ere denied as not ad dressi n g t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s f ee ap pl i cat i on order. M i ni c l i e rt he n f

i l e d a fe e a p p l i c a t i o n wi t h t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e , r e que s t i ng 40% of H al l–W i l l i am s’ s s et t l em en tw i t h A l l st ate or , i n t h e al t ern a tiv e, $32 , 328
. 12, sup ported by a 19

- pa ge “pre- bi l lw orksh eet ” cl ai m i n g servi ces perfo rm e d by P au lM i n i cl i er, D avid B i n egar, T i f fan y C h ri st i an , an d su pp ort st af f

. H al l–W i l l i am s r es ponded byf i l i ng doc um ent s t hat al l ege dl y show ed t hat M i ni c l i e r ’ s “ p r e - b i l lwo r ks he e t” c o nt a i ne de r r o ne o us t i m e e nt r i es . H al l–W i l l i am s al so di sput ed PaulM i ni c l i er ’ s bi l l i ng r at e. I n i t s r epl y, M i ni c l i erc l ai m ed t hat t he docum en t s , pr e s e nt e d b y Bi ne ga rChr i s t i an i n r e s po ns e t o i t s a ppl i c at i o n, Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

5 w ere m i sapp ropri a t ed f rom i t s of

f i ce, an d that t h i s m i sapp ropri ati on requi red
reso rt t o on l y th e p re-bil lw ork sh ee t M i n i cl i er h a d su b m i tted. T h e m a gistrate j udge i ss ued a r ec om m endat i on o n O c t obe r8 t hat M i ni c l i erbe aw ar ded $35 0 as t he c os tof

i nt er vent i on bu tbe d eni ed at t or ney’ s fee s bec ause i tdet er m i ned t hat M i n i cl i er’ s bil l i n g w a s i n a ccu ra te an d tha t M i n i cl i er w a s f i red “f or ca u se.” M in ic lie ro b je c te d to th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n b ya g a in
r ei t er at i ng t hat t he c our ts houl d have st ayed pro c ee di ngs onc e a r bi t r at i on w as in v o k e d or , a lter n a tiv e ly, th a t th e m a g istr a te j u d g e ’ s tr e a tm e n t of M in ic li e r ’s cl ai m f or at t orney’ s f

ee s w a s im p roper. O n N ovem ber 14, t h e di st ri ctcourt
o rd ered t h at M i n i cl i er’ s f ee app l i cat i on w ou l d be tr eated as a m ot i on f or s um m ar y j udg m e nta nd r e que s t e d t hatt he pa r t i e s f i l e c o r r e s po ndi ng me mo r a n d a . B o t h p a r t i e s f i l e d t h e r e q u e s t e d d o c u me n t s , w i t h H a l l

– Wi l l i a ms requ est i n g t h at t h e courttreath er m em oran du m as a cr oss- m ot i on f or s u m m ary ju d g m e n t. A f t er t h ese f

i l i n gs, t h e di st ri ctcourti ssue d a n op i n i on an d rend ered j u dg m en ton Ja n u ary 28, 200 9. Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed M i n i cl i er’s fee appl i c at i on i n partand ent er ed j u d gm enti n favorof M i ni c l i er , aw ar di ng $350 for t h e cos t of

f i l i n g H a l l

–W i l l ia m s’ s l a w su i t an d $2 , 6 0 0 i n attorn ey ’ s fee s to M i n i cl i er. Th e courtf ou n d that t h ere w ere no gen u i n e i ssues of m ater i alfacton s e v e r a l is s u e s a n d m a d e th e fo ll o w in gfi n d in g s a n d c o n c lu s io n s : M in ic li e r ’s
m o t i o n t o s t aype ndi ng ar bi t r at i o n wa s pr o pe r l y de ni e d b e c aus e , b y f i l i ng t he
m ot i on t o i nt eve ne, i thad s ubm i t t ed i t s fee di sput e t o t he cour t ; M i ni c l i erw as t erm i n ated f

or c au se; M i n i cl i er’ s pre- bi l l w orksh eet fai l ed t o carry i t s s u m m ary j u dg m en tbu rden ; an d P au lM i n i cl i er had w orked on ly th irteen hou rs on H al l–W i l l i am s’ s c ase. M i n i cl i er app eal s t h i s j u dg m en t , a rguing t h at the di st ri ct
cou rt erre d b y ( 1 ) d en yin g i ts m oti on to stay p en d i n g arb i tration ; (2) d en yin g it s obj ec t i ons t o t he m agi st r at e j udge’ s ord er requ i r i ng a f ee appl i c at i on; and ( 3)
e m pl o yi ng s um m ar y pr o c e dur e s and de nyi ng M i ni c l i e r t he f ul l am o u n t of Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

6 at t o r ne y’ s fe e s t hati tr e que s t e d. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e fi r s tc o n s id e rw h e t h e rth e d is t r ic tc o u r te r r e d in d e n y in gM in ic li e r ’s
m o tio n to s ta yits in te r v e n tio n p e n d in ga r b itr a tio n w ith H a ll– W illia m s . W e revi ew a den i alof

a m ot i on t o st ay a p roceedi n g pen di n g arbi t rat i on de n ovo. Ti t t l e v . Enr o n Cor

p. , 4 6 3 F .3d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed that “ [b] y fil i n g t h e m ot i on t o i n t ervene, M i ni c l i e rs ubm i t t e d t he m at t e ro f de t e r m i ni ng fe e s a nd c o s t s t o t he c o ur t ” a nd t h u s den i ed M i n i cl i er’ s m ot i on t o st ay pen di n g arbi t rat i on . T h i s w as err on eou s. T h e F ed era lA rb i tration A ct ( F AA ) states , i n releva n t pa rt: I f a ny s ui to rpr o c e e di ng be b r o ugh ti n a ny o f t he c o ur t s o f

t he U ni t ed St at es upon any i ss ue r ef era b l e t o a r bi t r at i on underan agreem en ti n w ri t i n g f or s u ch arbi t rat i on , t h e court i n w h i ch such sui tis p en di n g, u pon b ei n g sati sf i ed t h at the i ssue i n vol ved in such sui t or p r o c e e d i ng i s r e fe r a b l e t o a r b i t r a t i o n un d e r s uc h an agreem en t , shallon ap pl i cat i on of one of t h e pa rt i es st ay t h e t ri alof th e a cti on u n ti lsu ch arb i tration h a s be en h a d in acco rd a n ce w i th th e te r m s o f th e a g r e e m e n t . .
. . ” 9 U
. S. C. § 3
. Thus , w he n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he ra m o t i o n t o s t aype ndi ng arbi t rat i on shou l d be gran t ed, w e f i rst determ i n e w h et h er t h ere i s a w ritten
a gr ee m en t t o a rb i trate; th en w h eth er a n y o f th e issu es ra i sed are r efera b l e to
a r b itr a tio n . I

n r e Complai nt of Ho r nbe c k Of f s ho r e Cor

p. , 9 8 1 F
. 2 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 4 ( 5 th C i r . 1993) ( c i t i ng Mi d w estMech. C on t ract ors, I n c. v. Com m on w eal t h Con st r. Co. , 801 F. 2d 748, 750 ( 5t h C i r . 1986) )

. In u n d er t aki ng t hi s anal ys i s, w e no t e t hat

“ [ t he FAA ] e s t ab l i s he s t hat , a s a m at t e ro f fe de r all aw, a ny do ubt s c o nc e r ni ng t h e sc ope of

a rbi t rabl e i ssues shou l d be resol ved i n favor of arbi t rat i on , w h et h er t he pr obl em athand i s t he c ons t r uct i on o f t he c ont r ac tl a n gu a ge it se l f oran a l l eg a ti on of w a i ve r, d e la y , or a li k e d efen se to a rb i trab i l i ty. ” Mo s e s H
. Cone Me m ’lHo s

p. v . Me r c ur

y Cons t r . Cor

p. , 4 6 0 U .S . 1 , 2 4

– 2 5 (1 9 8 3 ); seealso Harvey v. Joyce , 199 F. 3d 790, 793 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( di sc uss i ng Moses H
. Cone )

. Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

7 H ere , the pa rtie s d o n ot d i sp u te tha t t h ere i s a w ri tten ag ree m en t t o arbi t rat e an d that t h e att orney’ s f ee di spu t e i s covered by the arbi t rat i on cl au se. In stea d , H a l l

–W i l l i a m s ar gu es t h a t th e arb i tration cl a u se in h er co n tract w i th M i n i cl i er is un en forcea b l e b eca u se sh e term i n a ted h er re l a ti on sh i p w i th M i ni c l i eror , al t er nat i vel y, t hat M i ni c l i erw ai ve d its ri ght t o a r bi t r at e b y in v o k in gth e litig a tio n p r o c e s s . B o th o f th e s e a r g u m e n ts a r e w ith o u t m e r it. Wi t h r e s p e c tt o t h e e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f

t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e , H a l l

– Wi l l i a ms do e s no ta r gue t hat t he c o nt r ac t o r t he a r bi t r at i o n c l aus e b e t w e e n M i ni c l i e ra nd H al l–W i l l i am s w as r e vo c ab l e o r w as r e vo ke d by t he pa r t i e s . As s uc h, und e rt he F AA , th e a r b itr a tio n c la u s e is e n fo r c e a b le
. S ee 9 U. S

. C. § 2 ( “Aw ri t t en provi si on i n any . . . c ont r ac tev i denc i ng a t r ansac t i on i nvol vi ng c om m er ce to s ettl e b y arbi t rat i on a c o n tro versy t h ereaf t er ari si ng ou tof

such con t ract
. . . , s hal lbe
v a lid , irr e v o c a b le , a n d e n fo r c e a b le , s a v e u p o n s u c h g r o u n d s a s e x is t a t la w o rin
e q u ity fo r th e r e v o c a tio n o f a n y c o n tr a c t.” (e m p h a s is a d d e d )); seealso B u ckeye Chec k C as hi ng, Inc . v . Car degna , 54 6 U
. S. 44 0, 44 5– 46 , 44 8 ( 20 08 ) (r e i t e r at i ng t h at “ as a m att er of

su bstanti ve federala rbi t rat i on law , a n arbi t rat i on provi si on i s s everable f

rom t h e rem ai n der of t h e contr act [] ” an d thu s i s en f orceabl e, even if th e r e is a q u e s tio n w h e th e rt h e p u ta tiv e co n tr a c t it s e lf is v o id ); Hornb eck , 981 F. 2d at 755 ( c i t i ng In reComplai n tof S edco, I

n c. , 767 F
. 2d 114 0, 114 8 ( 5th C i r. 198 5) ( “ [ a] bsen tal l egati on s of f rau d i n t h e i n du cem en t of t h e arbi t rat i on cl au se i t sel f, arbi t rat i on m u stproceed w h en an arbi t rat i on cl au se on i t s face app ears b r o a d e n o u g h to e n c o m p a s s th e p a r ty ’ s cla im s .”)). H al l–W i l l i am s’ s argum en tt h at M i n i cl i er w ai ved i t s r i gh tt o arbi t rat e al so l ac ks m er i t
. The r i ght to a rb i t r at i on m ay be w ai ved, butc our t s appl y a p r e s u m p tio n a g a in s t w a iv e r . Wi l l i am s v. C ign a Fi n . A d vi sors , I n c. , 56 F. 3d 656, 661 ( 5th C i r. 199 5)

. “W ai ver w i l lbe f ou n d w h en t h e party s eeking arbi t rat i on s ubs t ant i al l y i nvo ke s t he j udi c i alpr o c e s s t o t he de t r i m e nto rpr ej udi c e o f t he oth er p a rty.” Mi l l er B rew i ng Co. v. F ortW ort h D i st ri b. Co. , 781 F. 2d 494, 497 Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). In th is c o n te x t, p r eju d ic e “r e fe r s to th e in h e r e n t u n fa ir n e s s — in t erm s of del ay, expen se, or da m age t o a party’ s l egal posi t i on — t h at oc curs w h en t he part y’ s oppo nent for c es i tt o l i t i gat e a n i ss ue and l at ers ee ks t o a r bi t r at e t hat
sa m e issu e.’” S u b w ay E q u ip
. L ea singCo rp . v . F o rte , 169 F
. 3d 324 , 327 ( 5th C i r. 1999) ( quot i ng D o c to r ’ s A s s o c s ., In c . v . D is ta jo , 1 0 7 F .3d 1 2 6 , 1 3 4 (2d C ir. 1 9 9 7 )). W ai ver t h u s occurs w h en the pa rt y seeki n g arbi t rat i on “ ‘ en gag e[ s] i n som e overt
ac ti n co urtt hat ev i nce s a des i r e t o r es ol ve t he ar bi t r abl e di sput e t hro ugh l i ti ga ti on rath er th a n arb i tration
. ’ ” K eyt r ade USA v. Ai n T e m ouc hentM /V

, 404 F. 3d 891, 897 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng R epu bl i c I n s. Co. v. P

A IC O R ece iva bl es, LLC , 3 8 3 F .3d 3 4 1 , 3 4 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). H al l–W i l l i am s a l l e ge s t hatM i ni c l i e rw aive d i t s ri ghtt o a r bi t r at e t he d is p u te b y( 1 ) filin gth e A p r il 9 , 2 0 0 8 , m o tio n to in te r v e n e ; (2 ) s e n d in ga n e m a il
on M a y 7, 2 0 0 8 , d ecli n i n g t o atten d th e sett l em en t con feren ce; a n d ( 3 ) fai l i n g to i n vok e arbi t rat i on i n res pon se t o t h e m agis t rat e ju dg e’ s M ay 13 , 200 8, order requ i ri n g a fee app l i cat i on fr o m M ini cl i er. H ow ever, t h ese events do n ot de m o ns t r at e t hatM i ni c l i e rw aive d i t s r i ghtt o a r bi t r at i o n. M i ni c l i erf

i l ed a m ot i on f

orl eave t o i nt er vene on A pri l 9, 2008, w hi c h w as gran t ed on A pri l30. M i n i cl i er’ s next f i l i n g w as t h e m ot i on t o st ay i n t erventi on pen di n g arbi t rat i on on M ay 23
. Th e m ot i on t o st ay w as f i l ed w i t h i n t h e speci f i ed t i m e f ram e ordered by the m agis t rat e j u dg e to fi l e a fee app l i cat i on an d befor e anysub s t ant i all i t i ga t i o n co nc e r ni ng t he fe e di s put e had oc c ur r e d. I nde e d, t he
m ot i o n t o s t a y p e nd i ng a r b i t r a t i o n was f i l e d o nl y t e n d a y s a f t e r t he M a y 13 set t l em en tbetw een A l l st ate and H al l–W i ll i am s t h at provi ded t h e aw ard f rom w h ic h th e co n tin g e n c yfe e is d e r iv e d
. The r e que s tfor a st ay p e ndi ng ar bi t r at i o n was t he r e f o r e i nvo ke d i n t he
seco n d cou rt f

ilin g o n l y o n e a n d on e-h a l f m on th s after th e initi a lm oti on to i nt e r ve ne a nd l e s s t han f o urw e e ks a f

t e rt he m o t i o n t o i nt e r ve ne w as g r ant e d. Th us, as sum i ng argue ndo t hatM i ni c l i e r“ de l ay e d” a r bi t r at i o n atal lb y w ai t i ng Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

Wedo not see how Miniclier’s May 7 emailto Binegar Christian, alle ge dlydeclining 2 the invitationto atten d th e settlement co nfere nce with Hall–Willia ms and Allstate , is relevant to the mat t er of waiver. The emailis an out-of-court statement tooppo sing counselth at n eith err ef

er ence s arb itrationnorc oncern s th e arb itrab ilityof th e fe e di sp ute. As s u ch , we cannot sayth at this em ail con stitut es (orcontrib utes to) anyinvo cation of th e litigatio n process, much less asub stanti al invocationof the liti gation process, nor canwe say that this em ailsu gges tsanyd el ayinse ekin garb itration . See Miller Brewing, 7 8 1 F .2 d at 4 9 7
. 9 s ix w e e k s b e tw e e n its in te r v e n tio n a n d m o tio n to s ta y , w e co n c lu d e th a t t h is del ay i s not of

su f f i ci en td u rat i on to w arran ta f i n di n g of

w ai ver i n t h e absen ce o f p r eju d ic e , w h ic h H a ll–W illia m s h a s n o t a lle g e d
. Cf

. R epu bl i c I

n s. , 383 F. 3d at 344–4 5 ( f

i n di n g w ai ver w h ere part y requ est i n g arbi t rat i on di d so day s bef ore t r i ala f t e ra ns w e r i ng a c o m pl ai nt , c o nduc t i ng di scove r y, a nd f i l i ng num e r o us
m o tio n s ); Te n n e c o Re s i n s , I n c . v . Da vy I

n t ’l, AG , 770 F
. 2d 416 , 421 ( 5th C i r. 19 85 ) ( “ [ T] hi s a nd o t he rc o ur t s ha ve a l l o w e d [ e i ghtm o nt hs b e f o r e f i l i ng and pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n di s c o ve r y] as w e l l as c o ns i de r ab l y m o r e a c t i vi t y w i t ho utf i ndi ng t h at a part y h as w ai ved a contract u alri gh tt o arbi t rat e. ” ( ci t i n g cases) )

. Th u s, w e concl u de t h at M i n i cl i er h as n ot w ai ved i t s ri gh t t o arbi t rat e t h e f ee di spu t e. 2 A ccord i n gly, b eca u se th e u n d erlying fee disp u te i s “referab l e to arbi t rat i on ” un der H al l–W i l l i am s and M i n i cl i er’ s r et ai n er c on t ract , t h e di st ri ct
c o u r te r r e d i n d e n y i n gM i n i c l i e r ’ s mo t i o n t o s t a yp e n d i n ga r b i t r a t i o n . 9 U. S

. C. § 3 ; Subway Equi

p. Le as i ng , 1 69 F. 3d a t3 27 (ho l di ng t hatb e c aus e t he i rw as no w ai verof

t he r i ght t o a r bi t r at e, t he F A A “ r equi r e[ s] t he di st r i c tc our tt o s t ay l i t i gat i on pendi ng ar bi t r at i on” ( c i t i ng Hornb eck , 981 F
. 2d at754 ) )

. W e r e m and for en try of an ap p rop ri a te ord er re ferri n g H a l l

– W i l l i a m s an d M in ic l i er to
ar bi t r at i o n a nd s t ay i ng pr o c e e di ngs pe ndi ng ar bi t r at i o n. B ec ause t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n denyi ng M i ni c l i er ’ s m oti on t o s t ay pe n di ng ar bi t r at i o n, w e a l s o v ac at e , w i t ho ute xp r e s s i ng anyo pi ni o n a s t o t he
r e s u lt s , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s s u b s e q u e n tju d g m e n t , a w a r d i n gp a r t ia l a t t o r n e y ’s fees and cos t s t o M i n i cl i er. B ecau se w e vacate t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt
an d rem an d f

or r eferralto a rbi t rat i on , w e n eed n otd eci de t h e tw o ot h er i ssues Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

Under the circu mstance s, H all–Willi ams and Bin egar Christian mayh ave co nflictin g 3 inte re st s whichb othshouldc aref ully consi de r. C

f. LA . R. OF P R OF ’ L C O ND UCT R. 1.7(a)(2) (2 0 0 4). U nd er Loui sian a substantive l aw, whena clie nt discharge s on e l awyer op erating

4 und er a contingent fee contract and subsequentlyhires, for r epresentation in the same matter, anotherlawyer, also operating u nder a c ontingent fee contract, the presence of th e client's subsequent co unsel may be nece ssaryto the resolutionof a n attorney’s feedispute b etween th e clie nt a n d hisfor me r co u n se l. See Sau cier v. Hayes Dairy Pro ds., Inc. , 37 3 S o. 2 d 10 2, 1 19 (La . 1978) (opinio n on rehe arin g) (reman ding attorn ey 's feedispute to j oinsub sequ ent coun sel a s anin di sp en sab lep arty); see also O’Rourke v. C airns , 683 So. 2d 697, 704(L a. 1 996) (holdin g that, even when coun sel is terminated for cause, the termin ated coun sel is e nt it le dt o a recovery , red uced base d onth e “n ature and gravity of th e cause whichcontrib uted to the dismissal,” from th e apportione d total atto rney’s fee award). Bine gar C hri stianmaythus b e arequir edpartyforres olutionof thislitigation . See F ED . R. C IV . P. 19. However, we leaveth e que stionwhether Binegar Christian should b e a dded to th e litigatio n as a re quired partyfor th e di strictc ourtt o de ci deinlight of sub se qu ent develop me nts
. I n supple mental b riefingbefore us, Bine gar C hri stian ave r r ed th at it also has an 5 arb itrationcl auseinit s contr ac twithHall–Williams. Further, at or al argument, Bine gar Christian proffere d th at it had alre adypaid itself from the Allstate settleme nt funds hel d in its clie nt trust acco unt , leaving onlya s mallamount of those funds in that account. However, w he t her Binegar Christian and Hall–Willia ms actu ally have an agreement toarbitr ate dispute s an d whether Binegar Christian has actu ally ha nd le dt hesettl ementfun ds as it clai ms arequ estion s that we must leave to the district court to consi der in the first instance. 10 M i ni c l i e rpr e s e nt s o n a ppe al

— w he t h ert he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y ( 1) de nyi ng M i n i cl i er’ s obj ect i on t o the m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s order requ est i n g a fee app l i cat i on and ( 2) e m pl o yi ng s um m ar y pr o c e dur e s a nd d e nyi ng M i ni c l i e rt he f ul la m o unt
o f a t t o r ne y’ s fe e s t hati tr e que s t e d. I n H al l–W i l l i am s ’ s or i gi nalbr i e f i ng t o t hi s co ur t , one ar gum e ntw as m ad e t hats ho ul d b e b r i e f l y ad dr e s s e d, a l t ho ugh no tr e s o l ve d, i n l i ghto f t he
ar bi t r at i on t hat w i l lsh ortl y e nsue. Spec i f i c al l y, H al l–W i l l i am s ar gued t hat B i n egar C h ri st i an coul d n otb e a dd ed as a pa rt y t o t h e H al l–W i l l i am s–M i n i cl i er ar bi t r at i on. G i ven t he Loui si ana l aw and t he s t at em ent s of fer ed byB i negar 3 4 C hri st i an, w e w er e no tc on vi nce d by H al l–W i l l i am s’ s br i ef i ng t hat t her e w as 5 anyi m pe di m e ntt o a ddi n g Bi ne ga rChr i s t i an as a pa r t y t o t he H a l l

– W i l l i a m s –M i ni c l i e ra r b i t r a t i o n. W e a r e n o tr e q ui r e d t o d e c i d e t hat que s t i o n, ho w e ve r , a nd we l e ave t hatde c i s i o n t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti f s uc h a Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/13/2010N o. 09- 30113

11 m ot i on i s m ad e. Su f

f i ce i tt o say t h at t h i s argu m en t does n ot sup port af f i rm an ce o f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rde nyi ng ar bi t r at i o n. C ONC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e VA C A T E t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt and RE M AN D f

o re nt r y o f

a n a ppr o pr i at e o r de rr e fe r r i ng H al l–W i l l i am s a nd M i ni c l i e rt o a r bi t r at i o n a nd s t ay i ng pr o c e e di ngs pe ndi ng ar bi t r at i o n. Case: 09-30113 Document: 00511003886 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/13/2010