### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT D ecember 16, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Ho no ra ble Ric ha rd Mil ls, Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Judg e fo r t he Ce ntr a l D ist

ri c t of I lli no is, * sitti ngby desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1452 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 57 4- CV-T-2 4- MAP TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LP, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PALMER RANCH LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 16, 200 5) Before TJO FL AT and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and MIL LS , D istrict Judg e. * TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e:2 This is another arbitration dispu te in which the parties ar e litigatin g whether or not th ey shoul d be litigatin g. T he fam iliar scenario is that the parties agree in writing to arbitrate any dispu tes be tw ee n th em , but

the n on e party

f ile s alaw sui t t ak ing the pos iti on that the a gr ee m en t t o arb itr at e is i na ppl ic ab le , inv al id, or unenforceable for one reason or another. And ers v. Ho m et own Mo rtg ag e Ser vs ., 34 6 F .3d10 24 , 10 26 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The a ppellee in this case, Pa lm er R anch Lim ited Partnership (Pa lm er Ranch), originallyfiled suit against th e appellant, T erm inix Internation al Co m pany , L . P. ( T er

m ini x) , and tw o of

it s e m plo y ee s inthe Ci rc uit

Co urt f or Hillsboroug h County , F lorida. T he 131-coun t, 246-page, 937-paragraph stateco urt c om

pla int a cc use d T er

m ini x of num er ous vio la tio ns o f the F lor ida D ec ep tiv e and Unfair

Tr ade Pr actices A ct (FD UT PA ), Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.; c rim inal ra ck et ee ri ng ( i. e. , F lor ida RI CO ), F la . S ta t. § 77 2. 104; c ri m ina l f al se a dve rt isi ng, Fla. Stat. § 817.41; v arious form s of fra ud and negl igence, f

orty differ ent breaches of the “ duty of goo d f ai th and f ai r de al ing ” (c ount s 47 -8 6) , a nd f orty dif fe re nt br ea ch es of

c ontra ct ( co unt s 90 -1 29) . F or

the pur pose s of thi s a ppe al , it is en ough to s ay that the dis put e ge ne ra lly inv olv es T er

m ini x’ s pr ovi sio n of

te rm ite pr ote ct ionse rv ic es f

or P al m er Ranc h’ s 31 -b uil din g a

partm en t c om

ple x f ro m 199 7 thr ougha t l ea st 2 002. T er m ini x th enf

ile d th e pr es en t a ct ionin the U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f orThe pa rties sig ned twenty

separ ate c ontrac ts, eac h of which c ontained an a rbitration 1 clause . The a

rbitration clause s come in one of three forms. The f

irst form cove rs “a

ny controve rsy

or cla im between [Ter

minix and Palmer Ranc h] arising out of or relating to [the] a g re e me nt. ” Th e se c on d a nd thi rd fo rm s e xten d to “ a ll m atte rs in d isp ute be tw e e n th e m, inc lud ingbut no t li mit e d to any c ontr ov e rs y

or c la im b e tw e e n th e m ari sin gout of or re latin gto [t he] Ag ree ment, to any

wood destroy

ing inse ct re port with respe ct to the identified prope rty , or to the identified prope rty

in any way , whether

by virtue of c ontrac t, tort or otherwise.” The fir st form arbitration clause at issue provides that “[i] n no event sha ll either par ty be 2 liable to the other f

or indirec t, special or c onsequential damag es or loss of a nticipated prof

its.” The sec ond states, [T]he arb itr ator

sh a ll n ot h ave the po we r o r a uth or ity to h old Te rm ini x re sp on sib le f o r ( i ) th e r e p a i r

o r r e p l a c e m e n to f

an y t e r m i t e d am a g e t o th e i d e n t i f i e d p r o p e rty, (i i) los s o f a

nti c ipate d r e nts and

/or pr of its or los s o f q uie t e njo y me nt, (i ii) dir e c t, indirect, spec ial, incidental, conse quential, exemplary or punitive damag es, or ( iv) damag es or pe nalties relating to or a rising out of

any claim alleg ing a

ny dece ptive tr a de pr a c tic e . E a c h p art

y sh a ll b e re sp on sib le fo r p ayingany atto rn e y s’ fe e s, 3 the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida , se ek ing a n or de r co m pe lli ng arb itr at ionund er

§ 4 of the F ed er al A rb itr at ionA ct ( FA A ), 9 U . S. C. § 4. Jur isd ic tio n w as ba se d on div er sity of c iti ze nshi p. I n it s answ er , P al m er Ranc h di d no t de ny

that a ll of

it s co ntr ac ts w ithT er

m ini x in cl ude d br oa dly

w or de d arb itr at ionc lause s, but it 1 as se rt ed that the f ed er al a ct ionsho uld

be dis m iss ed

or stay ed und er the Co lor ad o Ri ve r ab ste nti on d oc tr ine . S ee ge ne ra lly Co lo. Ri ve r W at er

Co nse rv at ionD ist . v. U nit ed S ta te s, 424 U . S. 800 , 96 S . Ct . 123 6, 47 L . E d. 2d 4 83 ( 1976 ). I n th e alternative, Palm er R anch contended th at the arbitration agree m ents are unenforceable beca

use they “ illegally deprive [Pa lm er R anch] of statutory re m ed ie s and r igh ts, ” inc lud ing pun iti ve dam ag es , tr eb le dam ag es , dam ag es a nd inj unc tiv e an d de cl ar at or y r el ie f unde r the F D U T PA , a nd atto rn ey ’ s f ee s. 2e xpe rt wi tne ss f e e s, and oth e r e xpe ns e s it

inc ur s o n it s b e ha lf

in c onne c tio n w ith the ar bitration, plus one half the a rbitrator’ s fee and one ha lf of any expenses incurre d by

the ar bitrator . . . . The third is substantially

simil ar to the se cond except that it makes no mention of c laims based on de c e pti ve tr a de pr a c tic e s. Initially , we note that the arbitration clauses do not mention treble da mag es or injunctive or dec laratory

relief . To this ex tent, Palmer Ranch’ s arguments are like those the Supreme Court addre ssed in PacifiCare Hea lth Sy s., Inc. v. B ook, 538 U.S. 401, 123 S. C t. 1531, 155 L . Ed. 2d 578 (2003). The re, the plaintiffs argued that the a rbitration agree ments at issue, which wa ived “punitive or e x emplary

damag es,” w ere unenfor cea ble bec ause the y

would preve nt the arbitrator fr om a wa rd ingtr e ble dama g e s und e r F e de ra l RI CO . I d. at 40 5, 12 3 S. Ct. at 15 35 . T he Court , ho we ve r, no te d th at w hil e it h a d s ome tim e s tr e ate d s tatut or y tr e ble dama g e s a s p un iti ve , it ha d in other c ontext s treate d them as re medial. I d. Given its vary ing tr eatment of

treble da mag es, “a nd g iven the unce rtainty

surroundingthe par

ties’ intent with respec t to the contrac tual term ‘punitive,’” the Court concluded that it would be premature for it to addre ss either the va lidity of a tre ble-damag es wa iver or the antec edent que stion of contrac t interpretation. I d. at 406-07, 123 S. Ct . at 1535-36. The ref ore, it held that the a

rbitrator should dec ide in the first instance whether the agree ment actua lly

prec luded treble damag es. I d. Withre sp e c t to tr e ble dama g e s, thi s c a se is o n a ll f ours wi th P a c if

iCa re , a s F lor ida

c ourt s have a lso treated tr eble da mag es as both punitive and r emedial. Compare Sny der v. B ell, 746 So. 2d 1096, 1098-99 (F la. 2d DCA 1999) ( holding that tre ble damag es aw arde d under the civil theft statute are reme dial, not punitive), review g rante d, 760 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2000) , revie w dismissed, 778 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2001) , with United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Ber ry hill, 620 S o. 2d 1077, 1079 (F la. 5th DCA 1993) (c oncludingthat treble da mag es aw arde d under the fede ral odomete r fr aud statute “a re punitive a

nd in the nature of fines” ); Country Manors Ass’n, I

nc. v. Master

Antenna Sy s., Inc., 534 So. 2d 1187, 1195 (F la. 4th DCA 1988) (same with respe ct to treble da mag es under the civil theft statute); and Mc Arthur Da iry , Inc. v. Or igina l Kielbs, Inc., 481 So. 2d 535, 539-40 (F la. 3d DCA 1986) ( same). PacifiCare ’s holding w ould also clea rly apply to Palmer Ranch’ s argument reg arding decla ratory and injunctive re lief. None of the a g ree ments mentions declar atory or injunctive relief . Although it is true that one ag ree ment does state that the a rbitrator ma

y not awar d “dama g es or pe nalties relating to or a rising out of

any claim alleg ing a

ny dece ptive trade prac tice,” a

nd Palmer Ranch’ s claims for de clar atory and injunctive re lief ar e base d on alleg ed dece ptive trade prac tices, such r elief is not g ener ally thought of

as “da mag es or pe nalties.” Moreove r, as one Florida court re cently

observe d, “[g]ener ally , unless prohibited from doingso, arbitrators have the power to fashion equitable r emedies” and that “the rules of the Americ an Arbitration Association . . . permit the arbitrator to awa rd such r elief.” Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259, 264 (Fla. 2d D CA 2004). Given that Ame rica n Arbitration Association rules a lso gove rn this case , it seems unlikely that the ar

bitrator will interpre t the parties’ ag ree ments to preclude decla ratory or injunctive re lief. Additionally , we note that in Florida, a s in most j urisdictions, an ambiguous contrac t term is construed a g ainst the draf ter. E.g ., City

of Homestea d v. J ohnson, 760 So. 2d 80, 84 (Fla. 42000). This principle a pplies with particular

forc e whe re the languag e wa s selecte d to benef it the draf ter. E.g ., McGhe e Intere sts v. Alex ander Nat’l B ank, 135 So. 545, 548 (F la. 1931). As suc h, the re is n o b a sis fo r u s to a ssume at th is p oint th at th e arb itr ator wi ll i nte rp re t th e a g re e me nts to pr e c lud e the punit ive dama g e s and e qu ita ble re lie f t

hat Pa lme r R anc h s e e ks . 5 T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d T er m ini x’ s m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at ion . I n it s order, the court rea soned th at “ [t] he curre nt state of the law in this circuit is that an ar bitratio n a gr ee m en t tha t c ont ai ns r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio ns and a se ve ra bil ity c lause is e nf or ce ab le , but

an arb itr at iona gr ee m en t tha t c ont ai ns r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio ns and no severability

clause is unenforceable. See Paladino v. A venet Com puter Tech no lo gi es . Inc ., 13 4 F .3d10 54 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) an d An de rs v. Ho m et own Mor tga ge S er vic es , I nc . , 346 F . 3d 1 024 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) . ” T er m ini x I nt’ l C o. v. Pa lm er Ranc h L . P. , 200 4 W L 187 9965 , a t *1 ( M. D . F la . A ug. 4, 200 4) . B ec au se the arb itr at iona gr ee m en ts at i ssu e he re c ont ai n r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio ns b ut n ot se ve rab il it y

cla us es , th e d is tri ctco ur t h el d t ha t t he y were u ne nf

or ceab le . Id. T he dis tr ic t c ourt m isr ea d our de ci sio ns i n P al ad ino a nd A nde rs . P al ad ino doe s no t ho ld tha t any

r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio n c ont ai ne d ina n arb itr at iona gr ee m en t i s ne ce ssari ly

une nf or ce ab le or

ne ce ssari ly

r en de rs the a gr ee m en t nu ll an d vo id i n it s entirety . And A nders does no t holdthat any arbitration agreem ent that contains an une nf or ce ab le r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio n is c om ple te ly nul l and v oid

unl es s it a lso co nta ins ase ve ra

bil ity c lause . O rd inari ly , w he n on e party c ha lle nge s th e va lid ityIn the context of a cha lleng e to an a rbitration agree ment that is gove rned by the FAA, 3 “state la w, whethe r of leg islative or judicial orig in, is applicable if that law arose to gove rn issues c on c e rn ingthe va lid ity , r e vo c a bil ity , a nd e nf or c e a bil ity of c ontr a c ts g e ne ra lly .” Pe rr y v. Th oma s, 48 2 U .S. 48 3, 49 2 n .9 , 1 07 S. Ct . 2 52 0, 25 27 n. 9, 96 L . E d. 2d 42 6 ( 19 87 ). Th e F AApr e e mpt s state c ontr a c t la

w o nly to t he e xtent th at “ [a] s tate -l aw p ri nc ipl e that take s it s me anin gpr e c ise ly from the f act that a contra ct to arbitrate is at issue.” I d. This is because FAA§ 2, 9 U.S.C. § 2, make s arb itr atio n a g re e me nts e nf or c e a ble “ save up on

su c h gro un ds a s e xist at la w o r i n e qu ity for the r evoca

tion of any

contra ct.” In other wor ds, § 2 puts “arbitration ag ree ments ‘upon the same fo oti nga s o the r c ontr a c ts. ’” Pr ima Pa int Cor p. v. F loo d & Conkli n M fg . Co ., 38 8 U .S. 395, 423, 87 S. Ct . 1801, 1816, 18 L . Ed. 2d 1270 (1967) ( quoting H.R. Rep. No.96, 68th Cong ., 1st Sess. (1924)). 6 of an arbitration clause on the groundthat it contains u nenforceable r em edial restrictions, the court m

ust first determ ine whether those rem edial restrictions are, in fact, unenforceable—either because they defeat the rem edial purpose of anoth er fe de ra l st at

ute ( as in Pa la din o) or

be ca use the y a re inv al id unde r ge ne ra lly applicable state contract law . If all the provisio ns of the arbitration clause are 3 en fo rc ea ble , the n th e co urt m

ust c om pe l arb itr at iona cc or din g to the te rm s of the ag re em en t. I f, how ev er , som e or a ll of it s pr ovi sio ns are not

e nf or ce ab le , the n th e co ur t m us t d et erm in e whe th er t he un en fo rceabl e p ro vi si on s ar e se ve rab le . Se ve ra bil ity is de ci de d a s am atte r of state law . A nde rs , 346 F . 3d at 10 32. I f the of fe nsi ve te rm s are se ve ra

ble , the n th e co urt m

ust c om pe l arb itr at iona cc or din g to the r em ai nin g, va lid

te rm s of the part ie s’ a gr ee m en t. T he c ourt sh oul d de ny the m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at iononl y

w he re the inv al id t er

m s of the a rb itr at ionc lause ren de r th e en ti re cl au se vo idas a m at te r of st at e la w.7

T he r ea son that a

c ha lle nge suc h a s th e one a dvanc ed by P al m er Ranc h is or din ar ily am atte r fo r the c ourt t o de ci de is that i t ul tim at el y goe s to the va lid ity of the part ie s’ a gr ee m en t t o arb itr at e. T ha t i s, P al m er Ranc h arg ue s th at

the w hol e arbitration clause is unenforceable beca use it contains unenforceable r em edial restrictions that are not severable f rom the rem ainder. The Suprem e Court has re ce ntl y r ea ff irm ed that the que sti on “ w he the r the part ie s have ava lid a rb itr at ion ag re em en t a t a ll” is fo r the c ourt, not the a rb itr at or , to de ci de . G re enT re e Fi n. Co rp . v. Ba zz le , 539 U . S. 444 , 452 , 123 S . Ct . 240 2, 240 7, 156 L . E d. 2d 4 14 (plurality opini on). T his rule m akes im m inent sense, for in the absence of “ clear an d un m ist ak ab le e vid en ce ” that the part ie s in te nde d th e ar bitrator to ru le on the va lid ity of the arb itr at iona gr ee m en t i tse lf , F ir st O pti ons of

Ch ic ag o, I nc . v. K ap lan, 514 U . S. 938 , 944 , 115 S . Ct . 192 0, 192 4, 131 L . E d. 2d 9 85 ( 1995 ) (quotin g AT & T Te chs., Inc. v. Com m unication s W orkers of A m er. , 475 U. S. 643, 649 , 106 S . Ct . 141 5, 141 8- 19, 89 L . E d. 2d 6 48 ( 1986 )) ( al te ratio ns and quot ation m arks om itted), the arbitrator w ouldlack authority to invalid ate the very co ntr ac t f ro m w hic h he de ri ve s hi s auth or ity to be ginw ith . InA nde rs , w e did

not f oll owthi s us ua l pr oc ed

ur e be ca use the part ie s’ agreem ent contained an unam bigu ous severabilityclause, and state lawfavored se ve ra bil ity c lause s. A nde rs , 346 F . 3d at 10 31- 32. I t w as thu s c le ar be y ond an y8

doub t tha t the part ie s’ dis put e w oul d e ve ntu al ly w ind up i n arb itr at ion , a nd the onlyquestion wa s who would decide the validity of the challenged rem edial re str ic tio ns, the c ourt or

the arb itr at or . I d. a t 10 32. I n th at sit ua tio n, w e did

not ru le on the va lid ity

of the c ha lle nge d r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio ns b ec au se the re w as no long er any

question as to “ whether the parties [had] a valid arbitration agreem ent.” Bazz le, 539 U.S . at 452, 123 S. Ct. at 2407. Stated diff erently , bec ause we we re

“ sa tis fi ed that the m ak ing of

the a gr ee m en t f

or a rb itr at ion. . . [ w as ] not

in is su e”— i.e., t ha t v al id it y of t he arb it rat io n c la us e was no t i n q ue st io n— ev en if we as s u m ed th at th e r emed i al re s t ri ct i o n s we re i n v al i d , we af fi rmedth e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s “o r d e r d i r e c t i n g th e p a rt i e s t o p r o c e e dt o a r b i t r a t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e t e rms of th e ag reem en t.” 9 U.S.C. § 4 . H er e, w e ar e ab le to av oid the usu al pr oc es s f

or adif fe re nt r ea son: the part ie s have a gr ee d th at

the arb itr at or

w ill a nsw er

thi s qu es tio n by

pr ovi din g ( in a ll thr ee of the arb itr at ionc lause s a t i ssu e) that “ ar bitratio n sh al l be c ondu ct ed in accordance with the Com m ercia l Ar

bitration Rules th en in force of the Am erican A rb itr at ionA sso ci at ion ” (A A A ). A A A Ru le 8( a) , in tur n, pr ovi de s th at

“ [t ] he ar bitrator sha ll ha ve the pow er

to ru le on h is o r he r ow n j ur isd ic tio n, inc lud ing any obj ec tio ns w ithr es pe ct

to the e xis te nc e, sc ope or va lid ity of the a rb itr at ion ag re em en t. ” A m . A rb itr at ionA ss’ n, Co m m er ci al A rb itr at ionRu le s,9

ht tp :/ /www.ad r.or g/ sp .asp ? id =2 21 73 #_ Toc 13 02 96 01 . By in co rp or at in g t he AAA Ru le s, inc lud ing Ru le 8, int o th ei r ag re em en t, the part ie s c le ar ly a nd unm ist ak ab ly ag reed th atth e arb it rat orsh ou ldde ci de whet he r th e arb it rat io n c la us e is va li d. Se e, e . g. , Co nte c Co rp . v. Re m ote S olu tio n, Co . , 398 F . 3d 2 05, 208 ( 2d C ir . 200 5) (“ w he n . . . part ie s e xpl ic itl y inc or por at e ru le s th at

e m pow er a n arb itr at or

to de ci de issues of arbitrability , the incorporation serves as cle ar and un m istakable evidence of the parties’ intent to d elegate such issues to an arbitrator”); Apollo Com puter, In c. v. Be rg , 886 F . 2d 4 69, 473 ( 1st Ci r. 198 9) ( “ By

c ontra ct ing to ha ve a ll dis put es r es olv ed

a cc or din g to the Ru le s of the I CC . . . , Apol lo a gr ee d to be boun d by A rt ic le s 8. 3 and 8 . 4. T he se pr ovi sio ns c le ar ly a nd unm ist ak ab ly

a llo w t h e ar b i t r a t o r t o d e t e rmi n e h e r

o w n j u r i s d i c t i o n w h e n , a s h e r e , th e r e e x i s t s ap r i ma fa ci e ag re em en t t o arb itr at e w hose c ont inu ed e xis te nc e an d va lid ity

is be ing qu es ti on ed .”); Cit ifi na nc ia l, In c. v. Newt on , 35 9 F . Sup p. 2 d 5 45 , 54 9- 55 2 (S .D. M i s s . 2 0 0 5 ); Ba yer C ro p Sc i en ce , I n c. v . Li m ag ra i n Ge n et i cs Co rp ., I n c. , 2 0 0 4 WL 2931 284, a t *4 ( N . D . I ll. D ec . 9, 200 4) ( “ T he inc lus ionof the phr as e ‘ [t ] he arbitration shall be condu cted . . . in ac cordance w ith the prevailing com m ercia l ar bitratio n r

ule s of [ A A A ] ’ . . . is cl ear an d un m ist ak ab le e vid en ce that the iss ue of arbitrability

is to be sub m itted to th e ar bitrator.”) ; Brandon, Jones, S andall, Z eide, Kohn, Chala l & Musso, P. A. v. Me dPartners, Inc. , 203 F. R.D . 677, 685 (S. D. Fla.In o ur op ini on a ff ir min gthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on in B ra nd on , Jon e s, we sp e c if

ic a lly 4 declined to a ddress this issue. 312 F.3d at 1359 n.12. Terminix di d not specifica lly bringRule 8(a) to the attention of this court or, so fa r as 5 we c an tell, the district cour t. In its opening br ief on a ppeal, it did (1) quote the portions of the ag ree ments that incorporate the AAACommercial Ar bitration Rules, (2) ar gue that an “agree ment to arbitrate under the [AAA rules] automatically incorporates such rule s” (quoting El se v. Inf

light C ine ma

Int’ l, I nc ., 46 5 F . Su

pp . 1 23 9, 12 44 (W. D. Pa . 1 97 9) , a nd (3 ) s pe c if

ic a lly cite and disc uss a diffe rent AA A rule. B ut the g ist of its argument was simply that, as a g ener al proposition, the validity

of the re medial re strictions was an issue f or the a rbitrator to de cide. Given that Te rminix has at lea st argued (c orre ctly ) that the AA A rules a

re inc orporated as pa

rt of the pa rt ie s’ a g re e me nt, we c on c lud e that it is a pp ro pr iate to c on sid e r t

he e ff e c t of tho se ru le s in their entire ty

so that the “pa

rties . . . proc eed to a

rbitration in acc ordanc e with the ter ms of the 10 2001 ) (holding th at an agre em ent’ s incorporation by ref erence of the A AArules

“ pr ovi de [s ] c le ar

and unm ist ak ab le e vid en ce that the part ie s a gr ee d to a rb itr at e ar bitra bil ity ”) , a ff

’ d onoth er

gr ound s, 312 F . 3d 1 349 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) ; Br ak e 4 Masters Sy s., Inc. v. G abbay , 78 P. 3d 10 81, 1087-88 (A riz. Ct. App. 2003 ); D ream Theater, Inc. v. D ream

Theater, 21 Cal. R

ptr. 3d 322, 329-30 (Ct. App. 2004); Mo rrel l & Co . v. Leh r Co ns tr. C or p., 7 30 N.Y.S. 2d70 9 (N.Y. Ap p. Di v. 2 00 1) . Be ca use the part ie s have a gr ee d th at the a rb itr at or

sho uld de ci de thi s ul tim at e que sti on, the re is no r ea son fo r us t o de ci de the sub sid iary , a nte ce de nt que sti ons re gard ing the va lid ity

of the r em ed ia l r es tr ic tio ns tha t P al m er Ranc h no w ch al le nge s. I n th e or din ar y c as e, w e w oul d de ci de the se que sti ons onl y be ca use the y go t o th e va lid ity

of the arb itr at ionc lause it se lf , w hic h is by

de fa ult a n is sue fo r the c ourt, not

the arb itr at or . H er e, how ev er , the part ie s have c ontra ct ed a ro und that de fa ult r ule , and i t i s, the re fo re , unn ec es sary f or us t o r ea chthe se iss ue s. 5ag ree ment,” as intende d by the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 4.

11 A nde rs , 346 F . 3d at 10 33 ( “ H av ing de ci de d th e iss ue s ‘ es se nti al to de fi nin g th e na tur e of the f or um in w hic h adis put e w ill be de ci de d, ’ [ Mus nic k v. K ing Mo tor Co . of F t. L au de rd al e, 325 F . 3d 1 255, 126 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ] ( quot at ionm ar ks and citation om itted), w e should not and will not d ecide any m ore. ”). Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt de ny ing Te rm inix’s m otion to com pel arbitration and stay

the underly ing state-court proceedings is reversed, and the case is rem anded with instruction s to grant that m oti on and s tay

the se pr oc ee din gs. SO ORDERED.