## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 A LF R ED J ANI GA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. Q UESTA R C APIT AL C ORPO RA T I ON, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts. Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C2462

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 15, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 2, 2010

Befo re W OO D , E VANS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . Th is c ase pose s the questi on w hetherthe cour t or a n arbi tr ato r i s r esponsibl e for deci ding w hethera parti cul ardocum ent that the par ti es sig n ed qual i fi es as a co ntra ct, and i fso , wh etherthat c on tr ac t in c lu d es a n a r b itr at ion cla u se . A lfre d Jan iga is a P olis h im m igr an t w h o h as live d an d w or ke d in Illin ois for m or e t h an 20 ye ar s; n ev er th ele ss , to th is d ay (by h is acc ou nt ) he un d erstan d s only l im ite d E ng li sh

. J an iga’s2 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 bro ther, W ei sl aw H ess ek, r uns H ess ek Fi nanci alS er vi ces, LLC ( “Hes se kF i na nc i al ”) a nd i s a r eg i st er ed rep resen ta tiv e o f Q u es ta r C ap i ta l C or p or at ion (“Q u es ta r” ), a secur i ti es bro ker

- deal er . Problem s e rupted afterH ess ek ar ra nged f orhi s br othe r to i nvestwith Questa r. Jani ga si g n e d o n e p a g e o f Q u e s t a r ’ s Ne w Ac c o u n t F o r m a nd be g a n d ep ositi ng m one y i nt o his new accou nt
. Th e Form i nc l ude d an arbi tr at i o n c l au se . One y ea r a fte r o pen i ng the ac c ount, and unhap py w i th the r etur ns o n hi s invest
m en t, Janiga su ed H essek, H essek Fi na nc ial, an d Qu estar. D efend an ts (to w hom w e refer coll ectively as “Q ue star” unle ss the c onte xt r equi re s o th er w i se) as ked the di str i ct cour t t o sta y pr oce edi ngs a nd o rderarbi tr ati on under th e F ede r alArb i tr at i o n Act( “F AA ”) , 9 U
. S. C
. § § 3, 4
. The dist ri ct c ourtdeci ded thati t co uld noto rderarbi tr ati on i m m edi ate l y b ecause i t was notcl ea r w hethera contr act betw een Qu estar a n d Jan iga even ex isted

. I t the refore denie d the m oti ons w i thout prej ud i ce a nd tol d Qu est ar th a t i t c ou ld ren ew i ts m otion ifand w he n th e cou rt c oncl ud ed that ther e was a contr act. Constr uingthi s a s an o rderdenyi ng a m oti on t o re ferthe case to arbi tr atio n, all th re e d efe n d an ts filed th is i m m e d iat e a p p ea l. Id

. § 16. The Suprem e Cour t has sa i d that the r esponsibi l i ty to deter m i ne the val i dity o fthe contr act as a w h ole i s a ssi gned t o th e a rbi tr ato r, wh i l e s peci fi c chal l enges to an arbi tr ati on cl ause nor m al l y r em ai n w i th the co urt. Se e Ren t

-A-Ce nt e r, We s t, Inc . v. Jac ks on, 13 0 S
. Ct. 27 72, 27 78 ( 20 10) (ag r ee m en ts t o a rbi tr at e ar e o n a n e qua l f o o ting w ith ot h er co n tr ac ts an d are su bj ec t t o ge n er ally ap p li-N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 3 cab le contrac t d efense s). Bu t w ho d ecid es w he th er a co nt r ac t ex i st s ata l l ? J an i g a be l i ev es that th i s i s ani ss ue for th e d ist r i c t c ou rt . Qu es ta r ta ke s t h e o p p os ite p os itio n an d u rg es th at th e a rb itr a t o rs h av e t h is re sp on sibi l i ty. The di str i ct c ourtdeci ded thati t s hou l d add re ss the c ontr act- f or m ati on q u esti on, but i t r efra i ned fr om doi ng so o n the gr ound that i t l acke d suffi ci ent e vi dence to reach a conc lusion. W e agree w ith th e d istri ct co urt that the e xi ste nce o fa contr act is a n iss ue thatthe cour ts m us t dec i de p rio r t o s ta y i nga n a ct i o n a nd o r der i ng arbi tr ati on, unl ess the parti es have com m i tte d even that g a t e w a y iss u e t o t h e a rb itr at or s. Id. a t 27 79

- 81
. Unl i k e th e d istri ct cou rt, how ever, w e are satisfi ed that the record conta i ns eno ugh evi dence to r es olv e the questi on. That ev i den ce s ho ws tha t th e par ti es formed a c o nt r ac t an d th a tth e i r a g r e e me n ti n c l u d e d a n a rb i t r a t i o n c l a u s e . We th er efore r ev er se the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o r dera nd r emand wi thi ns truct i o ns t o g r ant Que st ar ’ s m o ti o n t o s ta y a nd to o r dera rbi tr at i o n.

I Janiga is th e P reside nt a nd Sec retary of P olkraft B uilde rs Corpor ati on, an I l l i noi s com pany that speci al i zes in re si denti aland com m er ci alr em odel i ng. A ccor ding to J ani ga, H ess ek l obbi ed hi m f ortw o yea rs to i nvestwith Que st ar . Af te r J an i g a fi na l l y a g r ee d t o o pena n a cc o unt in M arch 2008, H essek broug ht J an iga a “piece of pap er” and tol d him to si gn i t. The paper H essek proffer ed w as page three o fQuestar ’ s New A ccount For m . J ani ga r epr es en ts tha t H es se kne ve r di sc us se d “an y te r m s o fa ny4 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 agr eem ent .
. . i ncl ud i ng the m eani ng and exi ste nce o f arbitration as a d ispu te resolution” and , de sp ite J an iga’s ex pl i ci t r eque st, H ess ekne ve r pr o vi ded co pi es o fa ny do cum en ts r el at ed to the a cc o unt
. J an i g a spe ak s an d u n derst ands onl y l i m i ted Engl i sh. A ccor ding to J ani ga, al l o fhi s co m m uni ca ti o ns wi thHes se kwer e i n P o l i sh

. The N ew A c c o un tF o r m i s a c t ua l l y j us to ne i n a s e r i es of three con ne cted doc u m e n t s; th e othe r tw o for m s are the Cl i ent Agree m ent a nd the Sponso rs hi p Prog ra m Disc l osur e. A l l co ntra ct docum ents ar e wri tte n i n Engl i sh

. J an i g a admi ts tha t he sa w and si g ne d pa g e th r ee o fthe N ew Acc o untF o rm w he n Hes se kg av e i t to hi m , b uthe s a y s tha tthi s i s a l l tha th e s a w. Pa g e th r e e , h o we v e r, ma de n o se c re t of th e fac t th at t h er e w as an arb itr at ion cla u se in the picture. Dir ectl y above J ani ga’ s s i gnatur e, i t pr ocl ai m s:
“ I / W E H AVE REA D A N D U N DER S T O O D T HE P R E

- DI S P UT E AR B I T R AT I O N AG R E EM EN T C O NT AI NE D O N P AG E 4 , PA RAGR AP H 9 O F T HE CLI EN T AGREEM EN T AN D HA VE RECEI VED A COPY T H E R E O F.” A s that l anguage i nd i cate s, the arbi tr ati on cl ause a p p e a r s i n th e s e p a r a t e C l i e n tAg r ee m e n t, wh i c h f o l l o ws the pag e that J ani ga si gned. The cl ause sta tes i n part : I( w e) understa nd thatm y ( our) acc ount i s s ub j ect to the a rbi tr ati on r ule s o fthe Fin an ci alI nd ustr y Reg

u lato ryA uthor i ty. A rbi tr ati on i s use d to re sol ve a d isp u te be tw ee n tw o p ar tie s. . . . THI S AGREEM EN T CONTA I N S A PRE- DI S PUTE ARB I T R AT I O N C L AUS E
. BY S I GN I N G AN ARBI T R A-N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 5 T I O N AG R E E MENT , T HE P AR T I E S AG REE AS FO L L O W S: ( A) Allpa r ti es t o thi s ag r ee m enta r e g i vingup th e rightt o s ue e ac h o th eri n c o ur t, i nc l udi ngthe r i g htt o a t r i alb y j ur y, exc epta s pr o vi ded bythe ru les of th e a rb itr at ion foru m in w h ich a c laim is fi l e d. (B ) A rb itr at ion aw ar d s a re fina l an d bin d in g; a part y’ s abi l i ty to have a co urt re ver se orm odi fy a n a rb i t r a t i o n a wa r d i s v e r y l i mi t e d.

. . . . I ( we ) a g r e e tha ta l l c o nt r o v e r s i e s tha tma y a r i se between us co ncer ni ng anyo rdero r tr ansact i on, or the c onti nuati on, per f orm an ce o r bre ach o fthi s o r any ot h erag re em ent b etween us, wh er e e nter ed i nto b e f o r e , o n, o r a ft e r th e d a t e th i s a c c o u n ti s o pe ne d, shal l be de te rm in ed by arbi tr ati on be f or e a panelo f i nd ependent arbi tr ato rs se t up pursu an t t o the r ule s of the Finan c ia l I nd us try Reg ulatory A ut hority, or, wher e appl i cabl e, a c o ur t o fc o m pet en t j ur i sdi ct i o n. The Cli ent Agree m ent s peci fi es that N ew Y or k l aw g o ve r ns the a g r ee m en t an d i ts e nf o r ce m en t, butthe arbi tr at i o n cl au se f o und wi th i n th e Cl i en t A gr ee m en t pr o vi des th at th e F AA an d M i nne so ta l aw g o ve r n the arbi tr ati on a gr eem ent. Once Ja ni ga opened hi s a ccount, Questarst ar ted to send m onthly sta tem ents. Fo r a t i m e, J ani ga did not r eg i st era ny c o m p lai nt s. Thr ee months a fte r s i g ni ngthe ag re em en t, Jan iga inv es te d an ad d it i o n al $ 18 0,0 00 in hi s a ccount. A ye ari nto the r el atio n sh ip, however, J ani ga6 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 fi l ed a co m pl ainta g ains t H essek, H es se kF i na nc i al, a nd Que st arin the Uni te d S ta te s Di st r i ctCo ur t f o r the Nor th

er n D ist ric t o f I l l i n ois . Jan iga ’s c om p lain t a ss er te d six theo ri es ofr eco ver y a gainst the d efe n d ants: ( 1) vi ol ati on of Se cti on 10(b) of the Se curi ti es Ex change A ct of 1934 an d Ru le 10b-5 ; (2) negligenc e; (3) breac h of fidu ciary du ty; ( 4) fra ud ; ( 5) excess i ve tr adingand churni ng o fan in ve st m en t a c c ou n t; an d (6 ) v i ola tio n of th e Illino is Fr aud and Decepti ve Bu si ness Pract i ces A ct. On M ay 20, 20 09, Questarfi l ed a m oti on t o dism iss , o r in the al ternati ve, to st ay proce edi ngs a nd o rderarbi tr ati on. On J une 10 , 2 009, H ess ek and H ess ek Fi nanci al fi l ed a s epara te m oti on a skin g the co urt to or der a rbi tr ati on. Jan ig a co nc ede d tha t he “ ag r ee d t o i nv es t” wi ththe defen dan ts , b uthe o ffer ed a number o fr ea so ns why the di str i ct c ourtsho uld deny thos e m ot i ons and disr eg ar d the a rbi tr at i o n c l au se . To r es o l ve the se i ssu es, the d i s t r i c tc o u r th e l d th r e e s t a t u s c o n fe r en c e s o v e r t wo m o nths

. The fi rst tw o o fthe se a ddr es se d v ar i o us iss u es rela te d t o co n tr ac t e n for c em en t, su c h as Il lin ois consum erpro tect i on l aw and H ess ek’ s purpor ted fi du ci ar y d uty. A t the thi rd and fi nal st atus confer ence, o n J uly 10, 2 00 9, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o cus ed o n the “m eeting of the m ind s,” in li gh t of Janiga’s lim ited u nd ersta nd i ng o fEngl i sh and hi s a sse rt i on th at h e had neve r see n m or e th an o ne page o fthe contr act. The di str i ct co ur t co nc l ude d tha t i t woul d no t st aypr o ce eding s an d or der a rbi tr ati on unl ess and unti l the d efe n d ants est abli sh ed that a contra ct w as fo r m ed

. Th e d istri ct cou rt j ud ge or al l y e xplai ned his deci si on a s fol l ows:N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 7 [ T] he st ep th at ha s to co m e fi r st is to d ete r m i ne w h et h er th er e w as an A g r ee m en t. A n d ac c or d in gly Iam atthi s point denyi ng the m oti on t o sta y a nd to c om p el a rb itr at ion
. . . w ith ou t p rej u d ice for t h e p os sibl e r en ew al i fi t’ s dete rm i ned on an a pp ro pri ate re cor d that ther e i s i nd eed an A gr eem ent to ar bi tr ate at a l l

. . . . I t s e e ms t o me tha t wha t [ ] y o u o ug ht to be thi nki ng ab out i s ho w to pose the i ssue i n a way that the Cour t ca n addr ess i t, wh etherthr ough hear i ng, Iwould expect, o r som e a pp ro pri ate way. The di st r i ctc o ur t en te r ed ano r derde ny i ngthe m o ti o ns w ith ou t p rej u d ice on Ju ly 1 0, 20 09
. Qu est arfi l ed a t i m el y noti ce ofap pealo n A ugust 7, 20 09, F ED . R. A PP . P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) , and Hessek fi l ed a s ep arate n ot ice of ap p ea l on A u gu st 20 , 200 9, F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)( 3). Qu est ar ’ s no ti ce o fappealwa s d ock ete d as No. 09

- 2982 ; H essek’s a ppea l was do ck et ed as No. 0 9- 30 87
. W e co ns o l i d a t e d th e a p p e a l s f o r o u r r e v i e w.

II Befo re turningt o tho s e que s t i o ns , h o we v e r, we must ex p lain w h y ou r ap p ella te j u ris d ict ion is se c u re . W h ile or d in ar ily th e c ou rt s o f ap p ea ls h av e ju ris d ict ion on ly ove r fi nal deci si ons, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 291, the FA A es tabli sh es ap p ell ate j uri sd iction over certain interlocu tory appeal s. S ee A rthu r A nd ersen LL P v . Ca rlisle, 129 S. Ct. 18 96, 19 00 ( 2009 )
. I t pr ovi des thatan inter l ocuto ryappealm ay be t ak en f r o m a di st r i ct co ur t o r der“ r efus i nga s ta y o fa ny acti on . . . under thi s t i tl e” or“denyi ng a peti ti on . . . to8 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 ord er a r b it ration to p roceed

. ” 9 U
. S. C
. § 16(a)( 1)(A ), ( B ). W e h a v e h e l d tha tthi s r ul e a pp l i e s e v e n i fthe di s tr i ct c ou rtex p re ss ly in te n d ed to rev isitth e is su e a fte r ad d itio n al fa c t-fin d in g. Se e, e . g. , B o o m er v. A T & TC o rp., 309 F.3 d 40 4, 41 2-1 3 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); Kove l e s ki ev. SBC Ca pi t al M k ts., Inc ., 167 F.3d 361, 363 (7th Cir. 1999). That sa i d, w e hav e a l so re cogni zed that so m e ho usekee ping or ders that gi ve ri se to a “ del ay in c i dent to an or d er ly p ro c es s” ar e n otim m ed iat ely ap p ea lab le. C ont’l C a s. C o . v. Staf

fing C o nc epts, Inc., 538 F. 3d 5 7 7 (7 t h Cir. 2008 ) ( quoti ng M idd lebyC o rp. v. H ussm a n C o rp ., 962 F. 2d 61 4, 61 6 ( 7th Ci r . 19 92 ) )
. I n C o ntin enta l C a sua lty, th e dist ri ct c ourtst ruck w i thout prej ud i ce the def en dants’ m o ti o n t o di smi ss or st aythe a ct i o n pe ndi nga rbi tr at i o n, i n or der t o gi ve the c ourtan o pp or tuni ty to add re ss pen di ng m o ti o ns r el at ed to per so na l j ur i sdi ct ion a nd venue. 53 8 F
. 3d at 57 9- 80. Thi s r ule r eco gni zes that dist ri ct c ourts m ust be gi ven the di scr eti on t o m anage th eir ca se s; ro u tin e o rd er s t h at i n c i d en ta lly d ela y a d ec isi on on a m o ti o n t o o r dera rbi tr at i o n f al l o ut si de th e sco pe of§ 16. Th i s ca se i nvol ves m or e than an ac ti on desi gned to perm i t a n or derl y pr oc ess . The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed defen dan ts ’ mot i o ns t o s ta y b ec au se i t be l i ev ed th atthe de fe nd a nt s h a d n o te s t a b l i s he d tha ta c o nt r a c te xi ste d. T h is is t h e t y p e o f d ec isio n th at w e m ay rev iew im m ed iate l y. W e do so now , and d ec id e that the di str i ct c ou rterr ed in d en yin g Q u es ta r’s m ot ion , an d th at it sh o ul d t ak e an o th erl o o ka t H es se ka nd Hes se kF i na nci al ’ s m o ti o n.N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 9 III W e be gi n ouranal ysi s with the FA A
. 9 U
. S. C . § § 1

- 16. The F AA pr o vi d es thata wri tt ena rbi tr at i o n a g r ee m en t i n c er ta i n c o nt r ac ts “ sh al l b e v ali d, i r r ev o cabl e, a nd enf or c e a b l e , s a v e up o n s uc h g r o un ds a s e xi s t a t l a w o r i n equi ty f orthe re voca ti on o fany contr act. ” Id. § 2. A l though i t i s o ften s aid thatther e i s a federa l pol i cy i n f avo r ofarbi tr ati on, federa l l aw pl aces arbi tr atio n cl a us e s o n e qu a l f o o t i ngwi th o the r c o nt r a c t s , n o tab o ve them . See R ent-A -C enter, sup ra, at 27 76 ; G o tha m Ho ldi ng s, LP v. Heal th G rad es, Inc ., 580 F. 3d 664, 66 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng VoltInf

or m at i on Sc i e nc e s , Inc . v. Boar d of Tru s t e e s of Sta nfo rd U niv ersity, 489 U
. S. 468, 476 (1989 ))
. A ny “p reference” f orarbi tr ati on i s r ese rv ed f orthe i nter preta ti on o f t h e sc op e o f a va lid arb itr at ion cla u se , see , e . g. , A T &T Te c h s . , In c . v . Co mmu n i c a t i o n s Wo rk e rs o f A m. , 475 U
. S. 64 3, 649- 50 ( 1986 ) , w hi ch i s not at i ssue here

. The part i es do not dispute that the s cop e of the a rbi tr ati on cl ause i s br oad enough t o encom pass the i ssues r ai sed i n the com pla i nt. A s we have al re ady not ed, al l thr ee defen d an ts fi l ed m o ti o ns unde r sect i o ns 3 a nd 4 o fthe F AA
. S ec ti o n 3 al l ows a par ty to an a cti on i n federa l co urt to re quest a sta y o ft h at acti on pending arbi tr ati on i fa val i d arbi tr atio n cla u se ex ist s, an d se c tio n 4 al l o w s a p ar ty to file a m otio n t o o r dertha t arbi tr at i o n. 9 U. S
. C. § § 3, 4
. The dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed th es e m oti ons w i thout prej ud i ce pe nd i nga de t e r mi na t i o n tha ta c o nt r a c te xi s t e d. The fi rs t a spect ofthe dis tr i ct court ’ s rul i ng that Questa r cha llen ge s is the concl usi on that i t was the co urt’ s j ob to deci de w heth er a contr act exi sts
. The di vi si on o fl abor10 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 between co urts and arbi trat or s i s a per enni alquesti on i n c as es i nv o l vinga rbi tr at i o n c l au se s. I n Pri m a Pai ntCorp. v. Flo o d & C o nk lin M a nu fa c turin g C o ., 388 U
. S. 395 (1967), the S up re m e Cour t a nnounced that, w h en face d w i th m ot ion s to st ay su its or or d er arb itr at ion , c ou rt s s h o u ld eval uate only the val i dity o fthe arbi tr ati on a gr eem ent; chal l enges to the val i dity o fthe enti re co ntra ct

— e . g. , fr au d i n th e i n d u c e me nt

— sh ou ld be left to the arbitrator. Se e Ja m es v. M cD o na ld’ s C o rp., 417 F.3d 672, 680 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( describi ng the P ri m a P aint r ul e)
. I n B uckeye C heck Cash i ng, Inc . v. Car degna, 546 U
. S . 4 40 (2006), th e C ou rt r e v i e we d a de c i s i o n o fthe S upr e me Co ur to fF l o r i da th a t r e fu s e d t o e n f o r c e a n a rb i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i n a c o nt r a c tth a twa s c h a l l e n g e d a s u n l a wfu l u n d e r s t a t e l a w. Apply i ngPrim a P aint a nd Sou t hl and Corp
. v. Ke at i ng, 465 U
. S. 1 ( 1984 ) , the Court “c on cl ud e[ d] that be cause resp ond en ts ch all en ge t h e A greem en t, bu t not sp ecificall y i ts arbitration p rovisi ons , th ose p rovisi ons are enf or ceabl e a part f ro m the re m ai nd ero fthe contr act. The chal l enge shoul d ther ef or e be co nsi dered b y an arb it r a to r, n ota c ou rt .” 54 6 U .S. at 4 46 . In sh or t, “a ch all enge to the v al i dity o fthe contr act as a whole , and not sp ec ifica lly to th e a rb itr at ion cla u se , m u st go t o t h e a rb itr ato r. ” Id. at44 9. B uc k ey e th us reaffirm ed the va li d ity of Pri m a Pai ntin al l oca ti ng the r esponsibi l i ty f ortwo typ es o fchal l enges : ch al l en g es t o the v al i di tyo fthe a rbi tr ation ag r ee m en t and chall enges to the contr act as a whole

. I n a foo tnot e, ho wev er, the Co ur t i n B uc k eye ac kn ow led ge d th e p o s s ibi l i tyo fa thi r d ty pe o fc ha l l en g e, w hi chi s ex ac tly the i s s u e th a ti s b e f o r e u s n o w:N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 11 The i ssue ofthe contr act’s v ali dity i s di ffer ent fro m th e i ss ue whethe r a ny agre ementb etwee n the al l eg ed o bl i g o r a nd o bl i g ee was e ve r c o nc l ud ed. Our o pi ni o n t o daya ddr es se s o nl y the f orm er, a nd does not sp eakto the i ssue deci ded i n the case s ci ted by resp ond en ts (and by th e Flori d a Sup rem e C o urt ), whi chho l d tha t i t i s f o r c o ur ts t o de ci de whethe r the al l ege d obl i gorev ersi gned t he co ntra ct, wh ether the s i gnor la cked a uthor i ty to com m i t the al l ege d pri nci pal, and w hetherthe sig n or l acke d the m ental capaci ty to ass ent. Id. at44 4 n. 1 ( i nter nal ci tat i ons om i tte d). S ee R e n t

-AC enter, sup ra , at 2778, n.2 ( “T he i ssu e of th e agreem en t’s

‘ val i dity’ i s di ffer ent fro m the i ssue w hetherany agr eeme n tb e t we e n th e p a r t i e s ‘ wa s e v e r c o n c l u d e d , ’ a nd , as i n [ Buckeye ] , we a d d r e s s o n l y th e f o r me r . ” )
. As we under st an d the se f o o tn o te s, the Co ur t was r es er ving f orano therday the ques tio n w ho i s r esponsibl e fordec id in g w h et h er th e p ar tie s fo rm ed a c on tr ac t a t a ll. I n Gran i t eRockCo. v. Int e r nat i onal Brothe rhood of Team sters, 130 S. Ct. 284 7 (2 010) , the Court el i m i nated all d ou b t a b ou t t h e a n sw er to th at qu es tio n, w h en it sai d “[ i ] t i s sim i l ar l y wel l se ttl ed that w here the disp u te atiss u e c on c er n s c on tr ac t fo rm at ion , t h e d isp u te is gener al l y fo r cour ts to deci de. ” Id. at 2855

- 56. I n so doi ng, it end orsed the p ositi on th at th is court h ad taken before Buckeye . S ee, e . g. , D epu ty v. Leh m a n B ros., Inc., 34 5 F
. 3d 494 (7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( r emandi nga c as e to the di st r i ctcou rt to as se ss w h et h er th er e w as a m ee tin g o ft h e m in d s in li gh t of a m otion to com p el ar b itration ); Sp here D rak e Ins.12 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 Ltd . v. A l l A m . Ins. C o ., 25 6 F
. 3d 587, 59 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( hold i ng tha t “ as arbi tr ati on depends on a val i d contr act an argum en t tha t the cont ract d oes not e x ist can’t l ogi cal l y b e r eso l ved by the a rbi tr ato rs ”) ; Gi b s on v. Ne ighb o rho o d H eal th C linic s, 1 2 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 2 6 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( a ddress i ng the ar gum ent that a pro m i se l acke d consi derat i o n a s a j u d i c i a l l y - d e t er mi n e d i s s u e )
. T h i s r u l e f o l l o ws l o g i ca l l y fr o m the Co ur t’ s co nsist en t emphas i s o n the fac t th at arb itr at ion is a m at te r of c on tr ac t. Se e, e . g. , Re n t

-AC enter, sup ra , at27 76. On this poi nt, ther ef or e, the dist ri ct c ourtwas cor re ct

— th e cou rt m us t d ecid e w he th er a cont ract ex ists before i t deci des wh etherto st ay an act i on a nd ord erarbi tr ati on. The o nl y pl ace w here w e p ar t co m pany w i th i ts concl us i o n i s i t s b e l i e ftha ti twa s n o tab l e t o r e s ol ve thi s thres hol d q uesti on. S i nce J ani ga does not chal l enge the v alid i ty ofthe arbi tr ati on cl ause i tse l f, the dist ri ct cour t s hou ld have co nstr ai ned i ts re vi ew to the narr ow questi on wh ethera contr act exi ste d between the parti es. I n ourvi ew , the re cor d contains eno ugh i nfo rm ati on t o per m i t a dec i si o n o n the e xi st en ce o fa c o nt ract. A s o ur re vi ew i s deno vo , w e ca n re sol ve that i ssue ours el ves. Se e New k irkv. Vi l l. of Steg er, 536 F.3d 771, 774 (7th Cir. 2008 ) ( re vi ew i ng the f or m ati on o fa contr act deno vo ). W hat co ncern ed the dis tr i ct c ourtwas w hetherJ ani ga ap p re ci ate d the nature ofthe agr eem ent that he had si gned, or, a s the co urt pu t i t, wh etherther e was a m ee tin g of t h e m in d s . J a n iga follow s t h e s am e p at h in th e ar gum en ts he made bo thi n the di st r i ctc o ur t an d now o n appeal

. These ar gum ents, i fac c ep ted, m i ght l eadN os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 13 to the c oncl usi on that the con tr ac t is notenf or ceabl e. For e xa mpl e , J a ni g a a r g ue s tha t he di d no t g e t a c o py of th e co nt r ac t, he ne ver re ad i t, he c o ul d no t r ea d i t i fhe t r i e d , a n d h e d i d n o tkn o w w h a th e a g r e e d t o d o . He al s o a r g u e s th a t He s s e k ’ s fi d u c i a r y d u t y, I l l i n o i s co nsum erpro tect i on l aw , and pro ceduralunconsci onabi l i ty i nval i date the con tr act. But none o fthes e a rgum ents r efut es the b as i c po i nttha t J an i g a si g ne d a n a g r ee m en t w i th Questar( u si ng the se rv i ces ofH ess ek) and that the par ti es perf orm ed u nd erthatag re em ent fora yea r orso . W e a re l eft o n ly w i th the questi on wh etherthat contr act is en f or ceabl e, and that i s the kind o fi ssue that Pri m a Pai nt, Buckeye, a nd Ren t

-A-Ce nt e r p u t s q u ar ely in th e arbi tr at o r ’ s bo x. Lo o k i ngmor e f o r m al l y a t th e que st i o n whe th era c o ntr a c te xi s t s b e t we e n J a ni g a a nd Qu e s t a r, we r e c o gni ze fi r s tth a tc o n t r a c tf o r ma t i o n i s g o v e r n e d b y s t a t e l a w. Se e First O pti o ns o

f C hic ago , Inc. v. Ka pla n, 514 U
. S. 93 8, 944 ( 1995 )
. There i s s om e quest i on her e about w hi ch sta te’ s l aw appli es: the contr act w as signed in I l l i noi s; i t pr o v i d e s th a ti t s e n f o r c e me n ts h a l l b e g o v e r n e d b y t he l aws o fNew Yo r k ; a nd i t se par ately p r o vi des tha t th e a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e me n ti s s u bj e c tt o Mi n n e s o t a l a w. We n e e d n o td we l l o n th a tp r o b l e m, h o we ve r , b e c a u s e we see no differ ence am ong the l aw s o ftho se th ree s tat es th at w ou ld be d isp os itiv e. T h e g oa l in a ll th re e s ta te s is to gi ve effect to the intent ofthe parti es as dem onstrat ed th ro u gh ob j ec tiv e c on d u c t. C arey v. R ichards Bldg. Supply C o ., 85 6 N .E .2d 24 , 27(Ill . 200 6); Fl ore s v. Lo werE. Si de Serv . Ctr., 82 8 N .E .2d 59 3, 59 7 (N .Y . 2 0 0 5); H i ck m an v. SA FE C O Ins. C o . o

f A m ., 69 5 N
. W
. 2d 36 5, 3 70 n. 7 ( M i nn.14 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 2005 )
. I fthe ter m s o fthe contr act ar e unam bi guous, th e c ou rtm u st en fo r c e t h e c on tr ac t a s w rit te n . Le wit t on v. IT A So ftw a re, Inc ., 5 8 5 F. 3 d 3 7 7, 3 8 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( a pp lyin g Illino is law ); Grae v v . Gr ae v, 898 N
. E.2 d 909, 91 8 (N .Y . 200 8); M etro. A i rpo rts C o m m ’n v . No ble, 763 N
. W
. 2d 639, 645 (M inn
. 2009). The pr o bl em f o r J an i g a i s th at he s i g ne d a c o nt r ac t, a nd th at th e pa p er he signed refers to arbitratio n. J an iga’s signat ure

— w h ich h e a d m its w as g ive n vo lu n ta rily

— obj ecti vel y dem onst ra ted hi s a sse nt to the cont ra ct. I nd eed, J ani ga adm i ts that he ag re ed to o p en a bro ker age ac c ount. A l l thati s l eft forus i s t o deter m i ne wh ether th e c on tr ac t h e s ign ed inc lu d ed an arb itr at ion cla u se . It does. E ve n ifwe l i m i t o ur r evi ew to the one page th atJ an i g a si g ne d, i t i s im p ossibl e to a vo i d the c o nc l usi o n tha t he a g r ee d t o a rbi tr at i o n. As we no te d a t th e o ut set ofthi s o pi ni o n, di r ec tly abo ve hi s si g na tu r e i s th e f o l l o wi ngs ta te m en t, i n al l c api ta l l et te r s: “ I/W E HA VE R E A D A N D U N D E R ST O O D T H E P R E -D ISP U T E A R B ITRA TI O N A GR EE M EN T CO N TA I N ED ON PA GE 4, P A R A G R A P H 9 O F T H E C L I E N T A G R E E ME N T AND H A V E R E C E IV E D A C O P Y T H E R E O F.” T h is c lau se is un am biguou s; Janiga ackn ow ledge d by his s ig na tu re th athe r ea d, unde r st o o d, a nd r eceived a co py o fthe arbi tratio n a g r ee m en t, a nd thi s cl au se ( di st i nc t f r o m the arbi tr ati on cl au se i tse l f ) sa ys that disputes would be subj ect to arbi tr ati on. Questaral so offer s vari ous pi eces ofo bj ecti ve evi dence thatsupport i ts cl ai m that a c on tr ac t e x ist s, in c lu d in g Ja n iga ’s t w o d ep os its an d h is admi ss i o n tha t he ag r ee d to i nv es t. Again, J an i g a’ s va r i o us com pla i nts a b ou t e nfo rce abi l i ty ar e no t a t i ssue here ;N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 15 the o nl y i ssue f orthe cou rti s whether a co ntra ct was f or m ed. I t was. Janiga fi na ll y argue s tha t the Seven th A m en d m en t bars arbi tr at i o n. Buttha t ar g um en t pr o ve s m ucht o o much; parti es ar e e nti tl ed to o pt i n a c ontr ac t fo r an al ternati ve m etho d o fdi spute r eso l uti on that invol ves nei ther courts norj uri es. That i s i m pli ci t in any arbi tr ati on a gr eem en t. Here th er e i s m o r e: the pl ain l an g ua g e o fthe con tract inc lud es an exp ress w aiv e r o f t h e ri gh t to a j ury tr i al, a nd w e u p hol d s uchwai ve r s ev eni n f o r m c o ntr acts
. S ee, e.g ., Sh erw o o d v. M a rquette Tran sp. C o ., 587 F. 3d 841, 842 (7th C ir. 2009). T he district c o u rt therefore sh ou ld ord er arbitration betw een J an iga and Qu estar. W e c an n otbe as co n fid e n t a t t h is p oin t t h at th e a rb itr ati on a gr eem ent b etween J ani ga an d Qu est aral so s we e p s i n He s s e k a n d He s s e k F i n a n c i a l

. T h e l a tt er t wo defe nd ants have ask ed us to hol d that the arbi tr ati on cl ause benefi ts and bi nd s them t o th e s am e e xtent a s Q u es ta r. H e ss ek ’s p rim ar y a rg u m en t is th at h e a n d h is com pany ar e a gents o fQuestar
. Cert ai nl y a n age nt m ay bi nd a pri nci pal to an a rbi tr atio n a greem ent, se e Z uri ch A m . Ins. C o . v . Wa tts Ind us., 417 F.3d 682 , 687 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) , s o the r e i s no disp ut e tha t Que st ari s a par tyt o the contractev en tho ugh i t was act i ng thr ough Hessek

. H es se k ’ s appe al ask s whethe r a g en ts c anr ec ei ve the b en efitof an arb itr at ion ag re em en t b et w ee n th eir pri nci pal and a thi rd party. W e hav e a nsw er ed that q u es tio n in t h e a ffirm at ive for e m p loy ee s a c tin g w ith in t h e s c op e o f th eir ag en c y, D un m ire v. Sch neid er, 48 1 F
. 3d 465, 46 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , and t h ere doe s no t s eem to be16 N os. 09

- 2982 & 09

- 3087 any r eas on t o change the ru l e fornon- em plo yee ag ents. The re m ai ni ng questi ons, ther ef or e, ar e w hether H ess ek and H ess ek Fi nanci alwere age nts of Qu est ar, and w hether th e c laim s a ss er te d h er e a re w ith i n t h e s c op e o f th eir ag en c y. T h is i s an iss u e ab ou t th e arb itr ab ility o fc e rt ain cl ai m s, a nd s o i t sh o ul d b e dec ide d b y the c o ur t. But si nce the di str i ct c ourthas not h ad t h e opp or tuni ty to pas s o n the se i ss ue s i n the fi r sti ns ta nc e, we r emand thi s m uch ofthe case to the dist ri ct c ou rtso thati t ca n m ake the fi nd in gs necess ar y t o deci de w hetherthes e contr act ter m s a pp l y t o H ess ek and H ess ek Fi nanci al base d on ag ency pri nci ple s o r othe rwis e. Ou r deci si on i n thi s a pp ealsho uld notbe re ad to pass an y j udg m en t o n J an i g a’ s ar g um en ts r eg ar ding the en for c ea b ility oft h e c on tr ac t. P ri m a P aint a nd Buckeye do n o t b a n i s h th e s e a r g u me n t s ; th e y s i mply a s s i g n t he resp ons ibi li ty for evalu ating th em to an arbitrator. Forthes e r eas ons, we R EV ER SE th e dec i si o n o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur tt o de nyQu e s t a r ’ s mo t i o n a nd R EMA ND f or fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 2- 10