FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 16, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16665

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -010 64 -C V -B E -W C O N A R T , I N C ., a G e o r g ia C o rp o r a tio n , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H E L L M U T H , O B A T A + K A S S A B A U M , I N C ., a M is s o u r i C o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 16, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

C onA r t , I nc . , i s a c om pa ny tha tdi d the c onc r e t e a nd s t one w or k on the c ons truc t i on of

the S he l by - H a l l I nt e r di s c i pl i na ry S c i e nc e s B ui l di ng on the U ni vers i ty of A l abam a c am pu s und era s ub contra ctt o the generalcontra ct or for a pr oj e c t . H e l l m uth, O ba t a & K a s s aba um , I nc . w a s the a r c hi t e c tur a l f i r m a nd supervi se d con struct i on . A s oft en happ ens w i th l ar ge construct i on proj ec t s, there w e r e d is p u te s a n d th o s e d is p u te s le d to litig a tio n . C o n A rtsu ed H el l m u th i n fed eral d i stri ctco u rt . H el l m u th h ad cl ai m s ag ai n st C on A rtthathad b ee n ass i gn ed t o i tby another party ( the general contra ct or) i n an ea rl i erse tt l em entof thei r di ff er ence s. T he cont ra ctbetw ee n C on A rtand thatother party, w hi ch gave ri se t o the cl ai m s thatH el l m uth h ad been ass i gn ed, cont ai ned an a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e . A f

t e rC onA r ts ue d i t , H e l l m uth, r e l y i ng on the a rbi tr a t i on cl ause , fi l ed a dem and for arbi tra t i on of the as si gn ed cl ai m s. C on A rt ’ s di re ct cl ai m s a gai nstH el l m uth, w hi ch w er e the basi s of i t s l aw sui t , w er e notsubj ec tt o an a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t. C o n A r t r e s p o n d e d to H e llm u th ’s a rb itr a tio n d e m a n d b y a m e n d in g its c o mp l a i n tt o i n c l u d e a c o u n ts e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o ry j u d g me n tth a tth e c l a i ms H e llm u th w a s a s s e r tin g a g a in s t it w e r e n o t a rb itr ab le , a n d s e e k in g a n in ju n c tio n to preventthe arbi tra t i on proceedi ng s H el l m uth h ad dem anded. C on A rtcont ended tha tthe c l a i m s a ga i ns ti ttha tH e l l m uth ha d be e n a s s i gne d w e r e notc ove r e d by the3

arb i trat i o n cl au se, w h i l e H el l m u th co n t en d ed th atth ey w ere. T h e arb i trat i o n cl au se i t s e l f pr ovi de d tha tthe c our tw oul d de c i de w he the rc l a i m s w e r e a rbi tr abl e . T he d i stri ctco u rtd i d so , co n cl u d i n g th atth e assi g n ed cl ai m s H el l m u th h ad ag ai n st C on A rtw er e a rbi trabl e. Itdecl i ned t o ent era dec l ar at ory j ud gm entt o the cont ra ry a n d d e n ie d C o n A r t’s r e q u e s t f o ra n in ju n c tio n a g a in s t a rb itr a tio n o f th o s e c la im s . T h atru l i n g l eftth e o ri g i n al cl ai m s th atC o n A rth ad assert ed ag ai n st H el l m uth p endi ng before the di stri ctcourt . In spi t e of that , C on A rtfi l ed an appeal of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde c l i ni ng t o de c l a r e the c l a i m s H e l l m uth w a s a s s e r t i ng a ga i ns ti tnon- a rbi tr abl e a nd r e f us i ng t o e nj oi n the m . T he f i r s t , a nd a s i tturns out l a s t , i s s ue be f

or e us i s w he the rw e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o de c i de thi s appe a l . T he or de rC onA r ti s s e e ki ng t o ha ve r e vi e w e d i s nota f i na l or de rw i thi n the m e a ni ng of 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , b e c a u s e th e c la im s C o n A r t b r o u g h t a g a in s t H e llm u th a r e s till p e n d in g in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. T h e ap p e a lab ility o f

in te r lo c u to ry o r d e r s d is p o s in g o f a rb itr a tio n is s u e s is go verned by 9 U . S . C . § 1 6. T hatse ct i on spec i fi ca l l y provi des that : “ E xceptas othe rw i s e pr ovi de d i n s e c t i on 1292( b) of t i t l e 28, a n appe a l m a y notbe t a ke n f r om an i nt er l ocut ory order

— re fusi ng t o enj oi n an arbi tra t i on thati s s ubj ec tt o thi s t i t l e. ” 9 U . S . C . § 1 6(b)(4). T he di stri ctcourt ’ s orderi s one re fusi ng t o enj oi n an a rb itr a tio n th a t is s u b

je c t to T itle 9 , w h ic h is th e F e d e r a l A rb itr a tio n A c t. T h is is4

nota § 1292( b) pr oc e e di ng i n w hi c h pe r m i s s i on t o appe a l ha s be e n s oughta nd o b ta in e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d th is c o u r t. S o , th e p la in te r m s o f § 1 6 ( b ) f

it th is s itu a tio n s n u g ly ; th e r e is n o w ig g le r o o m . C on A rtar gu es that28 U . S . C . § 1 29 2(a) (1), w hi ch autho ri ze s i nt er l ocut ory appeal s gener al l y of order s “ re fusi ng . . . i nj un ct i on s” gi ves us j uri sdi ct i on ov er th is ap p e a l. T h a t a r g u m e n t h a s to o m u c h th r o w w e ig h t. A c c e p tin g it w o u ld w r ite ou tF A A § 1 6(b)(4)’ s c l ea r c om m and, because a l l orders “ re fusi ng t o enj oi n an a rb itr a tio n ” a r e o r d e r s “r e f u s in g . . . in

ju n c tio n s .” W e d o n ’t h a v e th e a u th o r ity to e x c is e s p e c if

ic s ta tu to ry p r o v is io n s in f a v o ro f m o r e g e n e r a l o n e s . I n s te a d , w h e n p r e s e n te d w ith a p o te n tia l o v e r lap b e tw e e n th e b r o a d ly sw ee pi ng t erm s of ast atut e of genera l appl i ca t i on thatappears t o app l y t o an ent i re c l a s s , a nd the na rr ow buts pe c i f i c t e r m s of

a s t a tut e tha tappl i e s t o onl y a s ubgr oup of thatcl as s, w e a vo i d con fl i ctbetw ee n the tw o b y r ea di ng the spec i fi c a s a n e x c e p t i o n t o th e g e n e r a l . Se e Ed mo n d v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 2 0 U . S. 6 5 1 , 6 5 7 , 1 1 7 S. C t . 15 73 , 15 78 (199 7); M edberryv. C rosby, 35 1 F . 3d 10 49 , 10 60 (11th C i r. 20 03 ); B a l f ourB e a tty B a h. , L t d. v. B us h, 170 F . 3d 1048, 1050 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . 28 U . S . C . § 1292( a ) ( 1) a nd 9 U . S . C . § 16( b) c a n pe a c e f ul l y c o- e xi s ti f

w e r e a d the f o r m e ra s n o t ap p ly in g to s itu a tio n s s p e c if ic a lly d e s c r ib e d in th e la tte r . S ubs e c t i on 1292( a ) of

T i t l e 28 pr e c e de d the J udi c i a l I m pr ove m e nt s a ndAll decisions from the F ifth Circuit rendered bef ore O ctober

1, 1981 arebinding 1 pre c e dent o n th eEl e venth Circ uit . Se eB onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir. 1981) (en ba

nc). 5 A c c e s s t o J us t i c e A c t , w hi c h a m e nde d the F e de r a l A rbi tr a t i on A c tt o i nc l ude the pr ovi s i on gove rni ng appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on of a rbi tr a t i on or de r s tha ti s now cont ai ned i n 9 U . S . C . § 1 6(b). S ee P ub . L . N o. 24 8-65 5, 63 S t at . 95 4 (codi fi ed as a m e n d e d a t 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 9 5 1 ) ) ; P u b . L . N o . 1 0 0 - 7 0 2 , § 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 S ta t. 4642 ( c odi f

i e d a s a m e nde d a t9 U . S . C . § 16( b) ( 1988) ) . T he r e f or e , ourr e a di ng of th e m is a ls o c o n s is te n t w ith th e c a n o n th a t w h e r e tw o s ta tu to ry p r o v is io n s w o u ld othe rw i s e c onf

l i c t , the e a r l i e re na c t e d one y i e l ds t o the l a t e rone t o the e xt e nt ne c e s s a ry t o pr e ve ntthe c onf l i c t . S e e T ug A l l i e - B , I nc . v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 273 F . 3d 93 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ); IC C v. S . R y. C o. , 54 3 F . 2d 53 4, 53 9 (5th C i r. 19 76 ). 1 O u rr e a d in g o f

th e tw o ju r is d ic tio n a l p r o v is io n s d o e s n o t ru n a f o u l o f th is C our t ’ s hol di ngs i n A m e r i c a n E xpr e s s F i na nc i a l A dvi s or s , I nc . v. M a ka r e w i c z , 122 F .3 d 9 3 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) , o rB r a n d o n , J o n e s , S a n d a ll, Z e id e , K o h n , C h a la l & M us s o, P . A . v. M e dP a r tne r s , I nc . , 312 F . 3d 1349 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T he M ak arew i cz case is di st i n g u i sh ab l e b ecau se th e o rd er w e rev i ew ed i n th atcase de ni e d a m ot i on f

ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

tha tw a s s pe c i f

i c a l l y l i m i t e d t o the nona rb itr ab le c la im s in th e c a s e . 1 2 2 F .3 d a t 9 3 8 . B e c a u s e it d id n o t r e f u s e to e n jo in an arbi tra t i on , thatorder di d n otfa l l w i thi n the proh i bi t i on on i nt er l ocut ory app ea l6

c ont a i ne d i n § 16( b) ( 4) . I d. a t939. N ordi d i tf a l l w i thi n the pr ohi bi t i ons i n the other part s of thatsubsec t i on of the F A A . Id. T he B ra nd on deci si on al l ow ed an i nt er l ocut ory app ea l fr om an order of the di stri ctcourtdi ss ol vi ng a s t at e c ou rt in ju n ctio n . 3 1 2 F .3 d at 1 3 5 6 . B ec au se an o rd erd isso lv in g an o th erco u rt’s i nj unc t i on doe s notf

a l l w i thi n § 16( b) , the B r a ndon de c i s i on c a nnotbe pr e c e de nt for the prop osi t i on thatw e have i nt er l ocut ory app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov eran order th a t d o e s . W e a r e m in d f

u l o f C o n A r t’s in s is te n c e th a t e v e n if th e o r d e rr e f

u s in g to e n jo in a n a rb itr a tio n c a n n o t b e r e v ie w e d in te r lo c u to r ily b e c a u s e o f § 1 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) , it oughtt o be tr e a t e d a s a f i na l or de runde rthe C ohe n c ol l a t e r a l or de rdoc tr i ne . O ne o f th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

th a t d o c tr in e is th a t th e o r d e r“b e e f f e c tiv e ly u n r e v ie w ab le o n ap p e a l f

r o m a f in a l ju d g m e n t.” W ill v . H a llo c k , 5 4 6 U .S . 3 4 5 , 3 4 9 , 1 2 6 S . C t. 9 5 2 , 9 5 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o tin g P .R . A q u e d u c t & S e w e rA u th . v . M e tc a lf & E d d y , I n c ., 50 6 U . S . 13 9, 14 4, 11 3 S . C t . 68 4, 68 8 (19 93 )) . A n o rderre fusi ng t o enj oi n an a rbi tr a t i on c a n be r e vi e w e d a f t e rf i na l j udgm e nti s e nt e r e d i n the c a s e f ol l ow i ng the c o n c lu s io n o f

a rb itr a tio n . C o n A r t a r g u e s th a t w h a t it w a n ts to d o is a v o id a rb itr a tio n , a n d th e o r d e rd e n y in g it th e ab ility to d o th a t w ill n o t b e r e v ie w ab le af t erar gu m enti s c om pl et ed. T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thatthe “ m er e a v o id a n c e o f

a tr ia l . . . [ is n o t a ll] th a t c o u n ts w h e n a s k in g w h e th e ra n o r d e ris7

‘e f f e c tiv e ly ’ u n r e v ie w ab le if r e v ie w is to b e le f

t u n til la te r .” I d . a t 3 5 3 , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 9 5 9 . T h e s a m e is tru e o f a rb itr a tio n . B es i des, the w as t e notre as on i ng i n favor of i nt er l ocut ory r evi ew that C o n Artu r g e s o n u s i s a n o th e ra r g u m e n tth a ti s t o o s tr o n g f o ri t s p u rp o s e . I f

we base j uri sdi ct i on on the desi re t o avo i d the ri sk of arbi tra t i on proceedi ng s thatm ay l a t e rbe he l d t o be unne c e s s a ry , e ve ry or de rr e f us i ng t o e nj oi n a rbi tr a t i on w oul d be re vi ew abl e. N othi ng w ou l d b e l ef tof § 1 6(b) of the F A A . A pp l yi ng the C oh en col l at er al order doctri ne t o p erm i tan appeal that§ 1 6(b) spec i fi ca l l y prohi bi t s, as C on A rturges, w ou l d am ou ntt o u si ng a j ud ge-m ade doctri ne t o era se an une qui voc a l c ongr e s s i ona l c om m a nd. T ha tw e w i l l notdo. T h e ap p e a l is D I S M I S S E D f o rw a n t o f

ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n .