[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14705

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-00406-MHT-CSC

ALTON R. GRIGGS, JR., 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

YUSEF BRINSON, 

 Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee,

versus

KENWORTH OF MONTGOMERY, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(June 4, 2019)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 1 of 13 
2

Kenworth of Montgomery Inc. brings this interlocutory appeal under the 

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 16, contending that the district court 

erred in denying its motions to compel arbitration of the claims brought against it

by Alton Griggs and Yusef Brinson. The district court made the contested ruling 

in a summary order, saying only that “the motions to compel arbitration (doc. nos. 

26 & 52) are denied without prejudice and with leave to reinstate, following 

resolution of” another defendant’s “pending motion to dismiss.” The order noted 

that resolution of the then-pending motion to dismiss would “affect the course of 

this litigation.” That was it. The order did not provide any legal conclusions or 

factual findings. After careful review, we conclude that, given the summary nature 

of the district court’s order and the current state of the record, we are not able to 

conduct meaningful appellate review of Kenworth’s argument. We therefore 

vacate and remand for further proceedings. 

I.

Alton Griggs, a commercial truck driver, was driving a tractor-trailer when 

the truck’s engine unexpectedly lost power and turned off. To have the truck 

repaired, Griggs contacted the organization that owned the truck, A.K.G. Freight 

Carriers, LLC, and the seller of the truck, as the truck was still under warranty. 

The seller, Arrow Truck Sales, Inc., allegedly instructed Griggs to take the truck to 

Kenworth, an automobile repair shop in Montgomery, Alabama. At that repair 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 2 of 13 
3

shop, Griggs signed two invoices, each of which contained the same arbitration 

clause. The arbitration clause provides:

4. Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this 

Invoice or otherwise relating in any fashion to the purchase 

or sale of equipment, parts or service thereon shall be 

submitted to arbitration in the county in which the 

dealership is located, in accordance with the rules of the 

American Arbitration Association. Judgment upon any 

award rendered in such proceedings may be entered in any 

court having jurisdiction thereof, and the parties hereto 

submit to the jurisdiction of all State and Federal courts 

having venue in the county in which the dealership is 

located.

Shortly after Kenworth returned the truck to Griggs, the truck again lost power, 

causing it to run off the road and crash. 

To recover for the damages that he suffered during that wreck, Griggs sued 

Kenworth and Arrow in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. 

Griggs brought state-law claims for negligence and negligent 

misrepresentation/fraud against Kenworth, alleging that Kenworth failed to make 

appropriate repairs and misrepresented that it had fixed the truck’s mechanical 

problems. As to Arrow, Griggs accused it of negligence, breach of express and 

implied warranties, and negligent misrepresentation/fraud, arguing that Arrow 

failed to properly evaluate and repair the truck before selling it to A.K.G. Invoking

the arbitration agreements in the repair orders, Kenworth moved to compel 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 3 of 13 
4

arbitration of Griggs’s claims under the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Griggs opposed 

that motion, arguing that he was not a party to any arbitration agreement and that 

he was not bound by the agreements because he signed the invoices in his capacity 

as a member of the trucking organization, A.K.G.—not in his individual capacity. 

Yusef Brinson—a passenger in Griggs’s truck at the time of the accident—

then stepped in to intervene as a plaintiff in the action, asserting negligence claims 

against both Kenworth and Arrow. Kenworth moved to compel arbitration of

those claims, too. Kenworth asserted that, even though Brinson had not signed the 

arbitration agreements, he was still bound by the agreements due to an Alabamaspecific equitable doctrine that binds non-signatories to arbitration agreements.

Meanwhile, Arrow moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the 

Alabama court lacked personal jurisdiction. 

In response to these motions, the district court issued a summary order 

denying Kenworth’s arbitration motions “without prejudice and with leave to 

reinstate, following resolution of defendant Arrow Truck Sales, Inc.’s pending 

motion to dismiss.” The court noted that “resolution of” the then-pending motion 

to dismiss “will affect the course of this litigation.” But the court did not make any 

legal conclusions or factual findings. Kenworth now appeals. 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 4 of 13 
5

II.

We review de novo the district court’s order denying the motions to compel 

arbitration. Bess v. Check Express, 294 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002).

III.

A.

Before delving into the merits of this dispute, we explain why we have 

appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. “Ordinarily, courts of 

appeals have jurisdiction only over ‘final decisions’ of district courts.” Arthur 

Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 627 (2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291). 

“The FAA, however, makes an exception to that finality requirement” for certain 

interlocutory appeals. Id. Most pertinent here, it permits an interlocutory appeal 

from a district-court order “denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order 

arbitration to proceed” 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). By that provision’s plain terms, a

litigant who moves to compel arbitration may immediately appeal from a denial of 

that motion. See, e.g., Bess, 294 F.3d at 1302 (reviewing at interlocutory stage a 

district court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration).

Here, the parties do not dispute that Kenworth, by moving to compel 

arbitration, petitioned the district court to order arbitration to proceed under § 4 of 

the FAA. Nor is there any dispute that the court denied those motions. The only 

issue is whether our authority to immediately review the order denying the motions 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 5 of 13 
6

is affected by the fact that the court denied the motions without prejudice. Under 

these circumstances, it is not. 

The text of the FAA provision establishing our jurisdiction does not 

distinguish between denials with and without prejudice. See 9 U.S.C. 

§ 16(a)(1)(B). The text permits us to review any order “denying a petition under 

section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed” and an order denying a 

petition without prejudice can fall within that description; the phrase “without 

prejudice” simply permits the moving party to refile the motion again in the future. 

Id.; see also Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001) 

(“The primary meaning of ‘dismissal without prejudice,’ we think, is dismissal 

without barring the plaintiff from returning later, to the same court, with the same 

underlying claim.”). While some housekeeping orders—for example, an order 

striking a motion to compel arbitration, rather than denying it, or an order denying 

a motion to compel arbitration on technical grounds only—may not qualify for 

immediate appeal under the FAA, that is not the situation here. See, e.g., Cont’l 

Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc., 538 F.3d 577, 580 (7th Cir. 2008) (declining to 

exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order striking a motion 

to compel arbitration because the district court did not deny the motion). In the

order here, the district court denied the motions to compel arbitration on the merits. 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 6 of 13 
7

So there is no reason to exclude this denial without prejudice from immediate 

appellate review under the FAA.

Reviewing this order also aligns with one of the main goals of the FAA, 

which is “to allow for efficient, streamlined procedures” for arbitration. AT&T 

Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Refusing appellate review 

of all orders denying motions to compel arbitration without prejudice until after a

trial court resolves the dispute on the merits would conflict with that goal, as well 

as the FAA’s “strong federal policy in favor of arbitration.” Picard v. Credit Sols., 

Inc., 564 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We therefore see no 

reason to not exercise jurisdiction in this case. 

Our conclusion that we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal is consistent 

with that of other circuits to have considered similar cases. At least three of our 

sister circuits have held that the FAA permits immediate appeal of an order 

denying a motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. See Janiga v. Questar 

Capital Corp., 615 F.3d 735, 737 & 740 (7th Cir. 2010) (reviewing an order 

denying a motion to compel arbitration “without prejudice,” and with instructions 

that the defendant “could renew its motion if and when” the court resolved other 

issues); see also Chorley Enters., Inc. v. Dickey’s Barbecue Rests., Inc., 807 F.3d 

553, 561–62 (4th Cir. 2015) (same); Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSystem Phila., Inc., 

673 F.3d 221, 227–28 (3d Cir. 2012) (same); but see Cont’l Cas. Co., 538 F.3d at 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 7 of 13 
8

580 (FAA does not permit immediate appeal of an order striking—rather than 

denying—a motion to compel arbitration). We conclude that we possess

jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

B.

On the merits, we begin by providing some background rules about 

arbitration. Most fundamentally, “arbitration is a matter of contract.” Concepcion, 

563 U.S. at 339 (citation omitted). The FAA provides that a contract containing an 

arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such 

grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. 

§ 2. For agreements that fall within the scope of the FAA, “state law generally 

governs whether an enforceable contract or agreement to arbitrate exists.” Caley v. 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1368 (11th Cir. 2005). And “the 

party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are 

unsuitable for arbitration.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 

91 (2000).

With these principles in mind, we turn to the parties’ arguments. Kenworth 

contends that the arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable. Kenworth

therefore urges us to reverse the district court’s order denying its motions to 

compel arbitration and to order the district court to send the claims against it to 

arbitration. But, recognizing that the summary nature of the district court’s order

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 8 of 13 
9

may not provide an adequate basis for us to conclude that the arbitration 

agreements are valid and enforceable, Kenworth alternatively requests that we

vacate the order and remand for the court to issue a reasoned opinion. Griggs and 

Brinson, by contrast, argue that this Court should affirm the order denying the 

motions to compel. But if this Court cannot affirm due to the summary nature of 

the district-court order, then Griggs and Brinson also ask us to remand for the

district court to supplement its order with the reasoning behind its decision.

As the parties acknowledge, the summary nature of the district court’s order 

poses a challenge for appellate review. When reviewing summary orders, we may 

“undertake our own plenary inquiry into the” issues on appeal if “the record is 

complete and provides an adequate basis for” appellate review. Hall v. Holder, 

117 F.3d 1222, 1226 (11th Cir. 1997). But where summary denials “wholly fail to 

provide this Court with an opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate review,”

we will not relieve a district court of its responsibility to decide even purely legal 

questions in the first instance. Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1092 (11th Cir. 

2007) (per curiam). Instead, we will vacate the order and remand for the district 

court to enter a reasoned order that will allow for meaningful appellate review. 

See, e.g., id.

To ascertain whether this record provides an adequate basis for review, we 

must examine the parties’ specific arguments. We begin with Griggs’s three bases 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 9 of 13 
10

for resisting arbitration. First, Griggs claims that he signed the arbitration 

agreements in his capacity as a member of A.K.G., and not in his individual 

capacity. He asserts that an Alabama Supreme Court decision provides that when 

a person signs an arbitration clause in his capacity as a member of an organization, 

the clause does not require arbitration of claims brought in the signatory’s

individual capacity. Clement Contracting Grp., Inc. v. Coating Sys., L.L.C., 881 

So. 2d 971, 973–75 (Ala. 2003). Kenworth responds by pointing out that if Griggs 

did not want to sign the arbitration agreements in his individual capacity, then he 

could have signed the name of A.K.G.’s managing member (with her permission), 

or he could have noted under his signature that he signed as a member of A.K.G, as 

the signatory in Clement did—but instead he simply signed his own name. Second, 

Griggs argues that the arbitration agreements bind A.K.G., not him, because

(1) A.K.G. owned the truck, (2) the repair orders designate A.K.G., and not Griggs, 

as the “SOLD TO” party, and (3) Griggs identified A.K.G. as the purchaser of the

parts and services. Kenworth dismisses those facts as irrelevant and directs us 

back to the fact that Griggs himself signed the invoices, which contained 

arbitration clauses. Third, Griggs asserts that his claims against Kenworth do not 

relate to the invoices that he signed. According to Griggs, Kenworth issued three 

separate repair invoices for three separate sets of repairs that it completed; Griggs 

signed the first two repair invoices but not the third. And in Griggs’s telling, his 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 10 of 13 
11

claims against Kenworth relate to the repairs reflected in the third—and 

unsigned—invoice. While Kenworth acknowledges that it issued separate 

invoices, it insists that “each repair was related to, and a continuation of efforts to 

remedy, the same power loss problem.” 

Brinson, in turn, asserts that he too is free from the arbitration agreements. 

Because he never signed the invoices that contained the arbitration agreements, he 

asserts that the agreements have no bearing on his claims. But Kenworth still 

seeks to arbitrate Brinson’s claims, relying on an Alabama equitable doctrine that it 

claims binds a non-signatory to arbitration agreements when that non-signatory

asserts a legal claim that depends on the existence of the contract containing the 

arbitration clause. See Custom Performance, Inc. v. Dawson, 57 So. 3d 90, 97–98 

(Ala. 2010). According to Kenworth, Brinson’s claims depend on the existence of 

the repair invoices—which contained arbitration clauses—because Brinson alleges 

that Kenworth failed to adequately evaluate and repair the truck, and the invoices

document the work that he complains about. But Brinson insists that his claims 

have nothing to do with the invoices, and that the equitable doctrine therefore does 

not apply. 

The district court, by denying Kenworth’s motions to compel arbitration, 

presumably agreed with Griggs and Brinson that they do not need to arbitrate their 

claims. But we don’t really know. Because the court denied the motions in a 

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 11 of 13 
12

summary order, without expressing any factual findings or legal conclusions, we 

struggle to grasp which of the many reasons offered by Griggs and Brinson the 

district court found persuasive. So we are left guessing why the district court 

denied the motions—particularly considering the “liberal federal policy favoring 

arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 

24 (1983). Without a firm explanation of the rationale for denying the motions, we 

cannot conduct meaningful review of the district court’s order. And, although the 

parties invite us to analyze their factual and legal disputes for the first time on 

appeal, we are a court of review, and we ordinarily “do not decide in the first 

instance issues not decided below.” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 201 

(2012) (quoting Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 470 

(1999)); see also Clay v. Equifax, Inc., 762 F.2d 952, 957 (11th Cir. 1985) 

(“[A]ppellate review of what the district court did is largely an error-correcting 

function.”). We therefore vacate the order and remand for the court below to enter 

a reasoned opinion analyzing the motions to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Danley,

480 F.3d at 1091–92; Benoay v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 805 F.2d 1437, 1441 

(11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (remanding for the district court “to conduct a more 

thorough exploration of the validity of the arbitration issue”).

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 12 of 13 
13

IV.

The summary order that Kenworth appeals is insufficient to allow our 

appellate review. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order denying the 

motions to compel arbitration and REMAND for further proceedings.

Case: 17-14705 Date Filed: 06/04/2019 Page: 13 of 13