FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

M ay 29, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 348. M I LLI K EN v . C. M ERRI LL C O NS T R U C T I O N , LLC.
B R O W N , J ud ge. J ef f M illik e n (“ the o w ner” ) ap p eals f ro m the trial c o u rt’ s entry o f a f inal mo ney j u d gment o f $ 1 00,827

. 9 6 in fav o r o f C. M errill Co nstru c tio n, LLC (“ the c o ntrac to r” )
f o llo w ing his c o nf

essio n o f j u d gment. The o w ner c o ntend s that the trial c o u rt erred
in d enying his mo t i o n t o c o mp el arbitratio n and to dismiss, in granting the

c o ntrac to r’ s mo tio n to s tay arbitratio n, in its ru lings o n d isc o v e r y, and i n g r anting

atto r ney f ees to t h e c ontrac t or. Fo r the reaso ns exp lained belo w , w e af firm the trial

c o u rt’ s d enial o f the o w ner’ s mo tio n to dismiss, rev erse the trial c o u rt’ s d enial o f the

o w ner’ s mo tio n to c o mp el arbitratio n and its grant o f the c o ntrac to r’ s mo tio n to stayarbitratio n, v ac ate the trial c o u rt’ s d isc o v ery o rd ers and final j u d gment, and remand

w ith d irec tio n f

o r the trial c o u rt to o rd er the p arties to su bmit to arbitratio n. T h e rec o r d sho w s that o n J anu ary 6 , 2021 , the p arties entered into a

c o nstru c tio n c o ntrac t that i n c l u d e d a d isp u te reso lu tio n p ro v isio n. On Oc to ber 7 , 2022, the c o ntrac to r f

iled su it alleging the o w ner breac hed the c o ntrac t by f ailing to
p ay o v er $48,000 in o u t stand ing inv o ic es, $5,225. 58 o w ed o n a n o pen ac c o u nt f o r
rep airs p erf

o rmed f o r the o w ner at a dif

f erent restau rant lo c atio n, $8,441 o w ed o n an

o p en ac c ou nt fo r H V A C rep airs, and interest o n these amo unts. I n ad d i t i o n to its
breac h o f c o ntrac t and o p en ac c o u nt c laims, t he c o ntrac to r so u ght d amages ba s ed

u p o n u nj ust e nric hment, qu antu m meru it, as w ell as a writ o f a ttac hmen t o n r e s t au rant
equ ip ment listed f

o r sale and at t o r n ey f

ees, litigatio n exp enses, and c o sts. The

c o mp laint w as serv ed o n Oc to ber 21 , 2022, a nd the o w ner f iled an answ er o n N o v ember 1 6 , 2022, d enying liability; the o wner d id no t raise arbitratio n as a d ef ense

to the law su it.
On J anu a ry 5, 2023, the o w ner mo v ed the trial c o urt to d ismiss the law su it and

c o mp e l a rbitratio n. A c c o rd ing to t he o w ner’ s mo tio n, the c o ntrac to r f ailed to mak e

a d emand f

o r arbitratio n u nd e r the c o ntrac t and bro u ght litigatio n in v io latio n o f the

2c o ntrac t terms. The c ontrac t o r o p p o sed the m otio n and requ ested a stay o f arbitratio n

u nd er OCGA § 9- 9- 6 (b), a rgu ing that the o w ner w aiv ed his right to arbitratio n, f ailed

t o co m p ly w ith the agreement to arbitrate by igno ring the co ntrac t or’ s p re- su it requ est f o r med iatio n and d emand f o r arbitratio n, and that no t a ll o f the c laims asserted in the

c o mp laint w e re su bj ec t to arbitratio n. On Febru ary 6 , 2023, the trial c ou rt sc hed u led a hearing f o r M arc h 6 , 2023, o n the o w ner’ s mo tio n to d ismiss and c o mp el arbitratio n. The f o llo w ing d a

y, ho w ev er, the trial c o urt issu ed a sho rt o rd er d e nying the mo tio n ba s e d up on its c o nsid eratio n

o f the w ritten su b missio ns o f b oth p arties. I t su bsequ ently d enied the o w ner’ s requ est f o r a c ertif ic ate o f immed iate rev iew

. On M arc h 17 , 2023, t he o w ner f iled a v erif

ied “ Co nf

e s s i o n o f J ud gment” in

w h i c h he au tho riz ed “ the c lerk of the su p erio r c o u rt” to enter “ ju d gment f o r $6 9 ,009

. 55. ” The d o c ument rec ites that the o w ner “ d esires to c o nf ess j u d gment .
.

. to settle all c laims mad e o r that c o u ld hav e been mad e by [the c o ntr a c t o r ] ” i n the
p end ing law su it. On A p ril 6 , 2023, t he o w ner paid $6 9 ,009

. 55 into the registry o f the

c lerk o f c o u rt.

3On M ay 8, 2023, the c o ntrac to r filed a mo tio n f o r atto rney f

ees u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 5- 1 4 and OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1

. Fo llo w ing the f iling o f a n op p o sitio n brief by the

o w ner and a hearing held o n Ju ly 1 0, 2023, the t rial c ou rt entered a j u d gment, as later
amend ed to c o rrec t a mino r mathematic al erro r , in the t otal amo unt o f $1 00,827

. 9 6,
based up on t he c o nf

essed j u dgment amo u nt o f $6 9,009

. 55 , p r e j ud gment interest o f $1 1 ,31 7. 7 4, and a $27 ,431

. 84 a ward o f a t t o rney f ees and exp enses u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 5-
1 4 (b) and OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1

. 1

. T he o w ner asserts that the trial co u rt erred in d enying his mo tio n to d ismiss
and c omp el arbitratio n a nd in granting the c o ntrac t o r ’ s mo tio n t o stay arbitratio n,

c o ntend ing that he d id no t w a iv e his r ight to arbitratio n af ter the c o ntrac to r f

iled su it,
d id no t fail t o c o m p l y w ith c o nd itio ns p rec ed ent f o r a r bitratio n, and that all o f the

c laims in t he c o ntrac to r’ s c o mp laint sho u ld be su bmitted to the a rbitrato r. A s o u tlined
belo w , the trial c o u r t sho uld hav e o rd ered the p arties to su bmit to arbitratio n.

“ T his Co u rt rev iew s the grant o r d e n ial o f a m o t io n to co mp e l arbitratio n d e

no v o to s ee if the trial c o u rt’ s d ec isio n is c o rrec t as a matter o f law ; bu t w e d ef er to the
trial co urt’ s f

ac tu a l f ind ings u nless they are c learly erro neo u s. ” E mo ry Hea l thca re v . Fa rrell , 359 Ga. A pp . 6 21 , 6 22 ( 859 SE2d 57 6 ) (2021 ). “ The Fed eral A rbitratio n A ct

4(“ FA A ” ) ap p lies in s tate and f ed eral c o u r ts to all c o ntrac ts c o ntaining an arbitratio n

c lau se that inv o lv es o r af

f e c t s interstate c o mmerc e. W hen the FA A a pp lies, as it d o es here, it mu st be a p p l i e d u s ing f ed eral su bstantiv e law

. ” ( Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted .) S u n Tru s t Ba n k v. Li lli s to n , 302 Ga. 840, 842 (809 SE2d 81 9 ) ( 201 8). A s a
p reliminary matter, w e mu st d etermine w hether the trial co u rt o r the arbitrato r sho u ld
hav e d etermined the i s s u es o f w aiv er, co mp lianc e w ith c o nd itio ns p rec ed ent, and

w hether all o f the c laims asserted in the c o m p laint a re su bj ec t t o a r b i t r a t io n. See generally Bro wn v . RAC Accepta n ce Ea s t , 303 Ga. 1 7 2, 1 74- 17 7 ( 2 ) ( a )

- ( b) (809 SE2d

801 ) (201 8). (a) C o n du ct- b a s ed wa i

v er . I n general, “c o u rts d ec id e issu es o f alleged c o nd u c tbased w aiv er o f arbitratio n rights[,]

. . . bu t
. . . w here there is c lear and u nmistak able

ev id enc e that the p arties wanted a n a r b i t r a to r to reso lv e the d isp u te abo u t arbitrability,

c o u rts m u st giv e ef

f ec t to t he p arties’ agreement. ” ( Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted .) Bro wn , 303 Ga. at 1 75 (2) (a). A c co rd ingly, the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia
has p rev io u sly held that c o ntrac t langu age assigning the “resp o nsibility f o r reso lv ing

‘ disp u tes abo u t the v alid ity, e nf o r c e a b i lity, arbitrability o r s c o p e o f this A rbitratio n A greement’ t o the arbitrato r” p ro v id es c l e a r a nd u nmistak able ev id enc e that the

5arbitrato r sho u ld dec id e the issu e o f c o nd uc t -based w aiv er. I d. at 1 75- 1 76 ( 2) (a). M o re

s p e ci fi ca l l y , t h e S u p reme Co u r t c o nc lu d ed that t h e a p p e l l a n t ’s “co n d u ct

- b a s e d wa i v e r
argu ment is a d ire c t c hallenge to the en fo rcea bi li ty o f the arbitratio n a greement. ” (Emp hasis su p plied

. ) I d . at 1 7 6 (2) (a).
I n this c a se, the p arties’ arbitratio n a greement d o es no t assign resp o nsibility f o r

reso lv ing d isp utes inv o lv ing enf o rc eability to t he arbitrato r; w e m u st theref o re examine the p artic u lar c o ntrac t langu age bef o re u s f o r any c lear a n d u n m istak able
intent f o r the arbitrato r to d ec id e the issu e o f c o nd uc t -based w aiv er. The f ro nt p age

o f the c o ntrac t states t hat “ A I A D o c u ment A 201

- 2 0 1 7 , General Co nd itio ns o f the
Co ntrac t f

o r Co nstru c t io n, is ad o p ted in this d o c u ment b y ref erenc e. ” The c o ntrac t f u rther p ro v id es: ART ICLE 6 D IS P UT E RE S OLU TION § 6 . 1 Ini ti a l D eci si on M a ker The A rc hitec t w ill serv e as the I nitial D ec isio n M ak er p u rsu ant t o A rtic le 15 o f AI A D o c u ment A 201

- 2 0 17 , u n l e ss t he p arties ap p o int belo w
ano ther ind iv id u al no t a p arty to the A greement to serv e as the I n i tial D ec isio n M ak er. . . . [ 1 ]

1 The p arties d id no t agree that a perso n o ther than t he A rc hitec t w ou ld serv e as the I nitial D ec isio n M ak er. 6§ 6 . 2 Bi ndi ng D i spu te Resol u ti on

Fo r a ny Claim su bj ec t to , bu t no t reso lv ed by med iati o n p u rsu ant to A rtic le 1 5 o f AI A D oc u ment A 201

- 201 7 , the metho d o f bind ing d isp u te
reso lu tio n shall be

. . . A rbitratio n p u r su ant t o Sec tio n 1 5. 4 o f A IA D o c u m ent A 201

- 201 7

. [ 2 ]
Sec tio n 1 5. 4. 1 o f the A I A D o c u ment A 201

- 201 7 p ro v id es: I f the p arties hav e selec ted arbitratio n as the metho d f o r b ind ing d isp u te
reso lu tio n in the A greement, any Claim su bj ec t to , b u t no t reso lv ed by, med iatio n shall be su bj e c t t o a rbitratio n whic h, u nless t he p arties
mu tu ally agree o therw ise, shall b e ad ministered by the A meric a n A rbitratio n A sso c iatio n [“ A A A ” ] in ac c o rd anc e w ith its C o nstru c t io n I nd u stry A rbitratio n Ru les in ef f ec t o n the d ate o f the A greement.

W hile these ru les d o no t ap pear in the rec ord bef o re us, we m ay tak e j ud i c i a l no tic e

o f them. See Mi

ller v . GGN

S C Atla n ta , 323 Ga. A p p . 1 1 4, 1 20 (2), n. 1 1 (7 46 SE2d
6 80) (201 3). The A A A ’s Co nstru c tio n I nd u s t r y A rbitratio n Ru les and M ed iatio n Pro c ed u res, ef

fec tiv e J u ly 1 , 201 5, 3 c o ntain the f o llo w ing relev ant p ro visio ns: R- 1. Agreement of P arti es a nd D esi gna ti on of Appl i ca bl e AAA Ru l es

2 A n o p tio n fo r “ [l]itigatio n in a c o u rt o f c o mp eten t j u risd ic tio n” w as no t selec ted by the p arties.

3 T h e next versio n o f the Co nstru c tio n I nd u stry A r bitratio n R ules an d M ed iatio n Pro c ed u res bec a me ef f ec t iv e o n M arc h 1 , 2024. See ad r. o rg/c o nstru c tio n.
7(a) The p arties s hall be d eemed to hav e mad e t hese Ru les a p art o f their

arbitra t i o n a g r e e ment w henev er they hav e p ro v id e d f or arbitratio n by the [A A A] u nd e r its Co nstru c tio n I nd u stry A rbitratio n Ru les.

. . . R- 8 . Interpreta ti on a nd Appl i ca ti on of Ru l es The arbitrato r shall interp ret and ap p ly these Ru les inso f a r as t hey relate to the arbitrato r’ s p o wers and d u ties.

. . . R- 9 . Ju ri sdi cti on (a) The arbitrato r shall hav e the p o w e r t o ru le o n his o r her o w n j u risd ic tio n, inc lu d ing any o bj ec t io ns w ith resp ec t to t he exist e n c e , sc o p e, o r v a lid ity o f

the arbitratio n agreement. ( b ) The arbitrato r s hall hav e the p o w er to d etermine the exis t e n c e o r
v alid ity o f a c o ntrac t o f

w hic h an arbitratio n c lau se f o rms a p art.

. . . R- 54 . Appl i ca ti ons to Cou rt a nd E xcl u si on of Li abi li ty (a) N o j u d ic ial p r o c eed ing by a p arty relating t o the su bj ec t m atter o f the arbitratio n shall be d eemed a w aiv er o f the p arty’ s right to arbitrate. (i) W hile no Geo rgia c o u r ts hav e d ec id ed w hether these p r o v isio ns o f the A AA
Co nstru c tio n I nd u stry Arbitratio n Ru les and M e d iatio n Pro c ed u res p ro v id e ev id enc e

o f a c lear and u nmistak able intent f o r the ar b i t r at o r to d ec id e t he issu e of w hether a
p arty has w aiv ed the right to arbitratio n t hro ugh its c ond u c t, o ther j uri s d i c tio ns

c o nsid ering the langu age at issu e hav e c o nc lu d ed that it d o es no t. See, e. g. , Pla i n ti ffs ’
S ha reho l ders C o rp. v . S o u thern Fa rm Bu rea u Li fe In s . C o. , 486 Fed

. A p p x. 786 , 7 89

- 7 9 0 (I I ) (A ) (1 1 th Cir. 201 2) (rej ec t ing a rgu ment that arbitrato r sho u ld d ec id e issu e o f

8c o nd u c t

- based w aiv er based o n A A A ru le stating that th e “ a rbitrato r shall hav e the

p o w er to ru le o n his o r her o w n j u risd ic tio n, inc lu d ing any o bj ec t io ns w ith resp ec t to

t he existenc e, sc o p e o r v alid ity o f the arbitratio n agreement” ); In re S & R C o . o f
Ki ngs to n v . La to n a T

ru cki n g , 1 59 F3d 80, 85- 86 (I I I) (2nd Cir. 1 9 9 8) (c o u rt no t
p rec lu d ed f

ro m f ind ing that a p arty w a iv e d a rbitratio n by ac tiv ely p artic ip ating in litigatio n by A A A Ru le stating “ [n ] o j u d i c i a l p ro c eed ing by a p arty r elating to the

su bj ec t m atter o f the a r b i t r a t i o n shall be d eemed a w aiv er o f the p arty’ s right to arbitrate” ). As the Fif

th Circ u it Co u rt o f A p p eals o b serv ed , “ [t]he f ac t that langu age in a n arbitratio n agreement is bro ad eno ugh to co v er a p artic u lar issu e d o es no t mean the langu age is c lear and unmistak able. ” In tl. E n ergy Ven tu res Mgmt. v. Un ited E n ergy Gro u p , 99 9 F3d 257 , 26 4 (I I ) (B ) (5th Cir. 2021 ). H a ving rev iew ed the relev ant A AA

ru les and the reaso ning o f o ther j u risd ic tio ns, w e c o nc lu d e t hat the rec o r d bef o re u s lac k s t he c lear and u nmistak able ev id enc e to d isp lac e the u s u al p resu mp tio n t h a t a

c o u rt w ill d ec id e c o nd uc t- based w aiv er o f arbitratio n rights. (ii) W e no w tu rn to o u r d e no v o r ev iew o f w hether t he trial co u rt’ s d enial o f the

o w ner’ s mo tio n to co m p el a rbitratio n c a n be a f f irmed b ased u p on a f

ind ing that the

o w ner w a iv ed his right to arbitratio n by his c ond u c t in the litigatio n.

9[A ] p arty m ay, by its c o nd u c t, w aiv e its right to arbitratio n. Thu s,

a p arty that s u b

s ta n ti a lly inv ok e s the litigatio n mac hi n e r y p ri o r to d emand ing arbitratio n may waiv e its right to arbitrate. A p arty has

w aiv ed its right to arbitrate if , u nd er the to tality o f t he c irc u mstanc e s, the p arty has ac ted inc o nsistently w ith the arbitratio n right.

. . . (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ; emp hasis su pp lied

. ) S u n Tru s t Ba n k , 302 Ga. at
842- 843. 4 Geo rgia co u r t s h a ve c o nc lu d ed that engaging in t he f ollo w ing c o nd u c t b efo re d emand ing arbitratio n in p end ing litigatio n is inc o nsistent w ith the a rbitratio n right: engaging in extensiv e d isc o v er y ; 5 fi l i n g a m o t i o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d gment; 6 partic ip ating

4 In M o r g a n v. S u n da n ce, In c. , 59 6 U

. S. 41 1 (1 42 SCt 1 7 08, 21 2 LE2d 7 53) (2022), the United States Su preme Co u r t held t hat t he Fed eral A rbitratio n A c t d o es no t requ ire a p arty c laiming w a iv e r t o p r o v e “ p rej u d ic e. ” 59 6 U. S. at 41 6

- 41 9 (I I ). Co mp a re S u n tru s t Ba n k , 302 Ga. at 843 (inc lu d ing p rej u d ic e t o the o t her party in its d eterminatio n o f w hether a p arty has w aiv ed its r ight to a rbitrate u nd e r the t otality o f the c irc u mstanc es). A s w e agree w ith the p arties that this is a c a se inv o lv ing interstate c o mmerc e go v erned by the FA A , w e w ill no t e xamine p rej u d ic e in t his c ase. See generally W

i s e v . Ti da l C o n s t. C o . , 26 1 Ga. A pp . 6 70, 6 7 3 (1 ) (583 SE2d 46 6 ) (2003) (w hen “a transac tio n inv o lv es c o mmerc e, . . . the s tate law and p o lic y . . . m u st yield to the p aramo u n t fe d e r a l l a w”; “co n s t r u ct i o n g e n e rally inv o lv es interstate co mmerc e, bec au se mo st bu ild ing materials p ass in interstate c o mmerc e” )

.

5 W i s e , 26 1 Ga. A p p . at 6 7 4 (2).

6 I d

. 10in a p re- t r i al o rd er, 7 attend ing trial c alend ars, 8 selec ting a j ury; 9 seek ing arbitratio n

af ter d i sc o v e r y is c o m p lete and the d isc o v ery p erio d is o v er; 1 0 e xtend ing the time

w ithin w hic h to resp o nd and r esp o nd ing to d i s c o v e ry; 1 1 o p p o sing a mo tio n o n the merits; 1 2 f

iling leav es o f ab s e n c e a n d mo tio ns f o r pro hac v ic e ad missio ns; 1 3 and

w aiting f o r the o pp o sing p arty’ s resp o nses to w ritten d i s c ov ery requ ests bef o re d emand ing arbitratio n. 1 4 On the o ther hand , w e hav e f o u nd a p a rty do es no t a ct inc o nsistently w ith its right to arbitratio n w hen it “ only ac tiv ely engaged t he litigatio n
p ro c ess af ter [its] mo tio ns [to c o mp el arbitratio n] w ere d e nied

. ” La n gfi tt v . Ja cks o n ,

7 I d

.
8 I d

.
9 I d

.
1 0 Phi l W o o den Ho mes v . L a dwi

g , 26 2 Ga. A p p . 7 9 2, 7 9 3 (586 SE2d 6 9 7 ) (2003).

1 1 U S A Pa yda y C a s h Adv a n ce C

en ter #1 v . E v a ns , 281 Ga. A p p . 847 , 850- 851 (6 37 SE2d 41 8) (2006 ).

1 2 I d

.
1 3 I d

.
1 4 E d Vo yles Jeep- C

hrys ler v . W

a hls , 29 4 Ga. A p p . 87 6 , 87 8- 87 9 (6 7 0 SE2d 5 40) (2008).

11284 Ga. A p p . 6 28, 6 33 (1 ) (6 44 SE2d 46 0) (2007 ) ( rev er sing trial c o urt’ s d enial o f

mo tio n to c o mp e l arbitratio n).
I n o u r examinati o n o f w hether a p arty has w aiv ed its right to arbitratio n, it is imp o rtant t o k eep in mind that w e mu st ap p ly a to tality o f the circ u mstanc es test and

t h a t th e existenc e o r no nexistenc e o f an ind iv id u al instanc e o f c o nd u c t e xamined in

o u r p rio r c ases is no t o u t c o m e d eterminativ e. “ The qu estio n o f w hat c o nstitu t es a

w aiv e r o f the right of arbit r a t i o n d e p end s o n the fac ts o f eac h c ase. ” (Citatio n and
p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) US A Pa yda y C a s h Adv a n ce C

en t er # 1 v . E v a n s , 281 Ga. A p p . 847 , 850 (6 37 SE2d 41 8) (2006 ). “ W here, as h ere, the c o nc ern is w hether the

u nd isp u ted fac ts o f [a d ef end ant’ s] p retrial p artic ip atio n in the litigatio n satisf y the

stan d a r d f

o r w a i v er, t he qu estio n o f w aiv er o f arbitratio n is o ne o f law

. ” Ru sh v . Oppen hei mer & C o. , 7 7 9 F2d 885, 887 (2nd Cir. 1 9 85).
The rec ord sho w s that the o w n e r f i l e d an answ er on No vember 1 6 , 2022, d enying liability and raising af f irmativ e d ef

enses o ther than a r ight to arbitratio n. On
D ec ember 1 6 , 2022, t he c o ntrac to r’ s a tto rney sent a letter by mail a nd e- mail to the

o w ner’ s a tto rney alleging that h i s resp o nse to d isc o v ery requ ests ( interro gato ries,

r e q u e s t s t o p r o d u c e , an d r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s si o n s ) t h a t w e r e s e r v e d

12c o ntemp oraneo usly w ith the c o m p laint w ere o v erd u e. The o w ner’ s c o u nsel

immed iately resp o nd ed by e- mail that he had no t rec e iv ed the d isc o v ery w ith the

c o mp laint p ro v id ed t o him by the o w ner and ask ed the c o ntrac to r’ s atto r ney to send
the d isc o v ery requ ests “ a nd allo w me s u f f ic ient time to rev iew and d raf t resp o nses. ”
On D ec ember 1 9 , 2022, the c o ntrac to r’ s c o unsel p r o v id ed the d isc o v ery
requ ests to the ow ner’ s atto rney b y e- mail, as w ell a s inf o rmatio n sho w ing that the
d isc ov ery had been s erv ed o n the o w ner’ s w if e at their p lac e o f resid enc e . H e stated
that his go o d f

aith attemp t to reso lv e a d isc ov ery d isp ute had r equ ested the resp o nses be p r o v id ed by Tu esd ay, D ec ember 27 , 2022 (the d ay af ter the o b serv ed ho lid ay f o r Christmas in 2022), and inqu ired abo u t the amo u nt o f time need ed to f u lly resp o nd

to the d isc o v ery. On T u esd ay, J anu ary 3, 2023, t he o w ner’ s atto rney resp o nd ed by e mail that he had no t rec eiv ed a resp o nse to his requ est f o r a reaso nable amo u nt o f time

to resp o nd to d isc o v ery and w as “ p ro c eed ing as if [the c o ntrac to r’ s atto rney] has granted [ it]. ” I n the same e- mail, the o w ner’ s atto rney ask ed f o r c o nsent “ to a Co nf id entiality O r d e r ” b e c a u s e t h e co n t r a ct o r wa s s e e k ing “ c o nf id ential Tax rec o rd s,
p erso nal f inanc ial statements and o ther d o c u ments that sho u ld no t bec o me p art o f the
p u blic rec o rd u nless nec e ssary t o the litigatio n. ” The p arties t hen exc hanged e- mails

13o n J anu ary 4, 2023, o u t lining their d isagreement abo u t serv ic e o f the d isc ov ery w ith

the c omp laint and a d isc u ssio n o f the terms o f a p ro p o sed Co nf id entiality and N o nD isc lo su re Ord er. I n t hese d isc u ssio ns, the co ntrac to r’ s a tto rney to o k t he p o sitio n that a ll o bj ec tio ns to the disc o v ery had been w aiv e d and stated an intent to f ile a

mo tio n to c o mp el if the o wner asserted o bj ec tio ns to the d isc o v ery. O n J a nu ary 5, 2023, the o w ner f

iled his d emand f

o r arbitratio n and mo tio n to d ismiss the law su it.
Fo llo w ing his d emand fo r arbitratio n, the o w ner p ro v id ed w ritten resp o nses to d isc ov ery o n J anu a ry 6 , 2023. On J anu ary 1 9, 2 023, six d ays af ter the Co nsent C o n f id entiality and N o n- D isc lo su re Ord er w as enter e d o n Ja n u a r y 13 , 2 0 2 3 , t h e o wn e r
p ro d uc ed d o c u ments to the c o ntrac to r. On J anu ary 20, 2023, the c o ntrac t o r serv ed
requ ests f

o r p ro d u c tio n o f d o c u ments to a law f irm and a bank , w h i c h t h e o w ner

so u ght to qu ash o n Febru ary 2, 202 3 , b ased in part u p o n its p end ing d emand f o r arbitratio n. On J anu ary 30, 2023, sho rtly bef o r e seek ing to qu ash the c ontra c t o r ’ s
requ est fo r p ro d u c tio n o f d o c u ments to a no np a rty, the o w ner serv ed his o w n w ritten
d isc ov ery requ ests o n the co ntrac to r. On Febru ary 7, 2023, the trial c o u rt d enied the

o w ner’ s mo tio n t o co m p e l a r b i t r a t io n. A f

ter the trial c o u rt d enied the o wner’ s p etitio n

14f

o r a c ertif

ic ate o f immed iate rev iew , the c o ntrac to r p ro v id ed w ritten d isc o v ery
resp o nses to the o w ner. H av ing rev iew ed t he to tality o f the p ro c ed u ral histo ry o f this c ase, we d ec line

to find that the o w ner w aiv ed his right t o arbitratio n by his c o nd u c t af ter su it w as f

iled against him. T he o wner d id no t engage in su b stantial d i s c o v e ry bef o re d emand ing
arbitratio n and his c o nd u c t is “ less ac c u rately c harac teriz ed as ac tiv e litigatio n than

as a n ef f ort to p ro tec t [his] p o sitio n. ” (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Ba n q, In c.

v . Pu rcell , Case N o . 2: 22- c v - 007 7 3- A PG- V CF, 2023 U. S. D ist. LEXI S 7 49 4 at * 5 (I ) (A ) (2) (D

. N ev . J anu ary 1 4, 2023). A s ano ther j u risd ic tio n has o bserv e d , “ no t ev ery f o ray into the c o u r t h o u s e ef fec ts a w a iv er o f the right t o arbitrate, and ac tio ns

u nd erta k en by a p arty against w ho m the w aiv er w ou ld o p erate that are merely
d ef ensiv e w ill b e c o nsid ered c onsistent w i t h a n assertio n o f the right to arbitrate. ” (Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu a t io n omitted

. ) S ta rk v. Mo lo d S pi t z D eS an ti s & S t a rk, P. C

. , 29
A 3d 481 , 484 (N

. Y. A p p . D iv

. 2006 ), rev e rsed o n o ther gro u nd s, S ta rk v . Mo lo d S pi tz
D eS a n ti s & S ta rk, P. C

. , 87 6 N E2d 9 03 (N Y 2007 )

. 1 5

1 5 T h e c o ntrac to r a sserts that the o w ner’ s c o nd u c t after he mo v ed to c o mp el arbitrati o n also d emo nstrates a w aiv er. W e d ec line to f ind , based o n the p artic u lar f ac ts and c irc u mstanc es o f this c ase, that the o w ner’ s co nd u c t a f ter mo v ing t o c o mp el arbitratio n resu lted in a w aiv er.
15( b ) Con d i t i o n s preceden t to a rb i tra ti

o n . A s an alternativ e gro u nd to af f irm the tr i a l

c o u rt’ s d enial o f the mo t i o n t o c o mp el arbitratio n and the grant o f its requ est f o r a stay, the c o ntra c to r a sserts t hat med iatio n w as a co nd itio n p rec ed ent to bind ing

a r b itratio n, a nd the o w ner c anno t seek to e nf o rc e the arbitratio n p ro v isio n o f t h e

c o ntrac t w hen he f

ailed to attend a s c h e d u l ed med iatio n. T he o w ner asserts that he
f ailed to rec eiv e p ro p er no tif ic a t io n o f any su c h m ed iatio n o r a d emand t heref o re. We

c anno t c o nsid er the meri t s o f th i s c laim, ho w ev er, as “ the qu estio n of w hether o ne
p arty w aiv ed its right to c o mp el arbitratio n by f ailing to c o m p l y w i t h a p u rp o rted

c o nd itio n p rec ed e nt is f

o r the a r bitrato r to reso lv e,” W eb IV, LLC v . S a mples C

o n s tr. C o . , 349 Ga. A p p . 6 07 , 6 1 2 (1 ) (a) (824 SE 2 d 1 07 ) (201 9 ), based on the c o ntrac t langu age o u tlined abo v e giv ing the arbitrato r “ p o w er to ru le on h i s o r her o w n j u risd ic tio n, inc lu d ing a ny o bj ec tio ns w ith resp ec t to the existenc e, sc o pe, o r v alid ity

o f the arbitratio n agreement. ” See G r a d d y v . C a rn egi e Aca demy , Case N o . 2: 22- c v 00222- D B B- CM R, 2024 U. S. D ist. LEXI S 27 487 at *1 2- 1 3 (B ) ( D

. Utah Febru ary 1 5, 2024); Pi n n a cle D es i

gn / Bu i ld Gro u p v . Kelchn e r, In c. , 4 9 0 F Su p p 3d 1 257 , 1 26 2- 1 26 5

16(I I I ) (S. D

. Ohio 2020). 1 6 A c c o rd ingly, it p ro v i d e s no basis to af f irm the trial c o u rt’ s d enial o f the o wner’ s mo tio n to c o mp el arbitratio n. (c ) Arb i tra b i

li ty o f Open Acco u n t C

la ims

. T he o wner asserts that a ll o f the c laims
asserted a gainst him are su b j ec t to arbitratio n, w h i l e t he c o ntrac to r a sserts that the
f ac ts o f the c o m p laint d emo nstrate t h a t i t s o p en ac c o u nt c laims are no t su bj ec t to arbitratio n. Onc e again, t his issu e is no t f o r the c ou rts t o d etermine. W hile t he p arties
agre e d to arbitrate “d isp u tes and matters in qu estio n betw een t he Ow ner and
Co ntrac to r a ri

s i n g o u t o f o r rela ti n g to the Co ntrac t[,]” (emp hasis su pp lied ), they also agreed t hat the arbitrato r “ shall hav e the po w er to ru le o n his o r her o w n j u risd ic tio n, inc lu d ing any obj ec tio ns w ith resp ec t to the

. . . sco pe
. . . o f the arbitratio n a greement. ” (Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) AA A Ru le R- 9

. A s the Su p reme Co u rt o f Texas rec ently
exp lained af

t er a tho ro u gh analysis o f n a t io nw id e law , “ the f ac t that the p arties’
arbitratio n agreement may c o v er o nly so m e d isp u tes w hile carv ing ou t o thers d o es no t af f ec t the f ac t that t he d elegatio n agreement c le a r l y and u nmistak enly requ ires the
arbitrato r to d e c id e w hether the p resent d isp u tes m u st be reso lv ed thro u gh

1 6 The Elev enth Circ u it ’s d e ci s i o n i n K e m i r o n A t la n t i c , In c. v . Agu a kem In tl. , 29 0 F3d 1287 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 2002), c ited by the c o ntrac to r in its brief , d o es no t requ ire a d if f erent resu lt as that c a se d id no t ad d ress the a rbitrato r’ s ju risd ic tio n to dec id e the qu estio n.
17arbitratio n. ” To t a lE n ergi es E &P US

A v . MP Gu l

f o f Mex i co , 66 7 SW 3d 6 9 5 , 7 1 9 (I I I ) (2023). A f

ter rev iew ing the p a rties’ agreement in this case, w e c o nc lu d e that it c learly
and u nmistak enly p r o v i d e s t hat the arbitrato r mu st d ec id e whether a ll o f the c laims
asserted b y the c ontrac t or f all w ithin the sc o p e o f the parties’ arbitratio n agreement. Cf

. Bro wn , 303 Ga. at 1 7 5

- 1 76 (2) (a). (d ) H av ing a d d ressed e ac h o f the argu ments related to the p ro p riety of the trial

c o u rt’ s dec isio n t o d eny t he o w ner’ s mo tio n to c o m p el arbitratio n a n d g r a n t the

c o ntrac to r’ s mo tio n t o stay arbitratio n, w e rev erse bo th o f these ord ers a nd remand

t h i s c a s e w ith d irec tio n f o r the trial c o u rt to c o mp el the p arties to s u bmit t o arbitratio n. W e af

f i r m the po r tio n o f the trial c o u r t’ s o rd er d enying the o w ner’ s

mo tio n to d ismiss. See OCGA § 9

- 9

- 6 (a) (“ I f the ap plic a tio n [to co mp el arbitratio n]
is granted , t he o rd er s hall o p erate to stay a p end ing o r su bsequ ent a c tio n, o r so mu c h

o f it as is ref

e rable to arbitratio n. ” ).

2. B ased o n o ur ho ld ing in D iv isio n 1, w e v ac ate the trial co u rt’ s o rd ers entering

a final j u d gment, granting t he c o ntrac to r’ s mo tio n to co mp el d isc o v ery, and d enying
the o w ner’ s mo t io ns to qu ash d isc ov ery. See C la rk v . Merri

ll Lyn ch, Pi

erce, Fen n er &

18S mi th, In c. , 9 24 F2d 550, 5 56 (I I ) (B ) (4th Cir. 1 9 9 1) ( vac ating j u d gment e ntered af ter trial bec au se trial c o u rt erred in d enying mo t io n to c o mp el arbitratio n).
J u d g m e n t af f i rmed i n pa rt, rev ers ed i

n pa rt, v a ca ted i

n pa rt, a n d ca s e rema n d

e d w i t h
di recti o n . D i lla rd, P. J. , an d Pa d

gett, J. , co n cu r .

19