FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 2, 2008 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. 07- 14547

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 32 -C V -C D L -4 K I M B E R L Y M . A D A M S , i n d i v i d u al l y an d o n b eh al f o f a cl ass o f p erso n s s im ila r ly s itu a te d , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M O N U M E N T A L G E N E R A L C A S U A L T Y C O M P A N Y , a c o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ 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 M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M o n u m e n ta l G e n e r a l C a s u a lty C o m p a n y ap p e a ls a n o r d e rth a t g r a n te d its m ot i on t o com pel arbi tra t i on of a di sput e w i th K i m berl y A dam s. M on um ent al c om pl a i ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om pe l l e d a rbi tr a t i on unde rone c ontr a c ti ns t e a d of tw o c ontr a c t s . W e di s m i s s thi s appe a l f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. W h e n s h e b o u g h t a tru c k , A d a m s e n te r e d a r e ta il in s ta llm e n t c o n tr a c t to fi nance bot h t he pu rc hase of the truck and t he prem i um for a n i nsurance pol i cy f r om M onum e nt a l . T he pol i c y i ns ur e d A da m s f orthe di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n w ha ts he w oul d ow e unde rthe r e t a i l i ns t a l l m e ntc ontr a c ta nd w ha ta n i ns ur e rw oul d pa y f or th e tru ck i f th e tru ck w as d am ag ed b eyo n d rep ai r. A d am s p ai d th e l o an earl y. A da m s f i l e d a l a w s ui ta ga i ns tM onum e nt a l f ora r e f und of s om e of the prem i um because s he pai d t he l oan earl y. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed a m ot i on fi l ed by M onum e nt a l t o c om pe l a rbi tr a t i on of the di s put e unde rthe F e de r a l A rbi tr a t i on A c t , 9 U . S . C . §§ 3, 4, a nd t o s t a y a l l j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs r e l a t i ng t o the tra nsac t i on . B ot h t he re t ai l i nst al l m entcont ra ctand t he ce rt i fi ca t e of i nsurance is s u e d b y M o n u m e n ta l in c lu d e d a n a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a rb itr a tio n a g r e e m e n ts c o n ta in e d in bo th t he re t ai l i nst al l m entcont ra ctand t he ce rt i fi ca t e of i nsurance w er e e nf or c e a bl e . T he di s tr i c tc our tl a t e rde ni e d A da m s ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on, butthe c our tm odi f

i e d i t s or de rt o de l e t e a s e nt e nc e a boutthe r e t a i l i ns t a l l m e nt3

cont ra ctas “ un nece ss ary di ct a” : W hen t he C ou rtm ade thatst at em ent , i tun ders t oo d thatP l ai nt i ff w as r e l y i ng upon the r e t a i l i ns t a l l m e ntc ontr a c t , w hi c h i nc l ude d the a rbi tr a t i on c l a us e , a s a n e s s e nt i a l pa rtof he rc l a i m . P l a i nt i f

f now r e pr e s e nt s t o the C our ttha tthe r e t a i l i ns t a l l m e ntc ontr a c ti s not e s s e nt i a l t o he rc l a i m i n thi s c a s e . I f P l a i nt i f f’ s c l a i m i s notde pe nde nt u p o n th e r etail i n stallm en t co n trac t, th en th at w o u ld af fe ct th e C o u rt’s a n a ly s is o f

D e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n u n d e rth e r e ta il in s ta llm e n t c o n tr a c t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e C o u r t h e r e b y a m e n d s its J u ly 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 O r d e rb y d e le tin g th a t s e n te n c e w h ic h th e C o u r t c o n s id e r s to be di ct a. T h e d istrict co u rt stated th at itw as n o t d ec id in g w h eth erarb itra ti o n o f A d am s’s c o m p la in t w a s r e q u ir e d u n d e rth e r e ta il in s ta llm e n t c o n tr a c t. W e a r e r e q u ir e d to e x a m in e o u rju r is d ic tio n s u a s p o n te . F in n v . P ru d e n tia lB ac he S ec . , Inc. , 82 1 F . 2d 58 1, 58 4– 85 (11t h C i r. 19 87 ). W e r evi ew j uri sdi ct i on al i s s ue s de novo. A T & T M obi l i ty , L . L . C . v. N a t ’ l A s s ’ n f orS t oc k C a rA ut o R a c i ng, Inc. , 49 4 F . 3d 13 56 , 13 60 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ). W e have no j uri sdi ct i on ov erthi s app ea l because the di stri ctcourt c o m p e lle d a rb itr a tio n . 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . S e c tio n 1 6 g o v e r n s th e ap p e a la b ility of i nt er l ocut ory order s r egar di ng arbi tra t i on , C on art , Inc. v. H el l m uth, O bat a + D a s s a ba um , I nc . , 504 F . 3d 1208, 1210 ( 11th C i r . 2007) , a nd s ubs e c t i on ( b) ( 2) s t a t e s tha t“ a n appe a l m a y notbe t a ke n f r om a n i nt e r l oc ut or y or de r. . . di r e c t i ng a rb itr a tio n to p r o c e e d ,” 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . T h is s e c tio n r e s o lv e s th is ap p e a l. M on um ent al ar gu es thatw e have j uri sdi ct i on because the di stri ctcourt4

de ni e d a s m ootthe r i ghtof M onum e nt a l t o a rbi tr a t e unde rthe r e t a i l i ns t a l l m e nt c o n tr a c t. S e c tio n 1 6 p r o v id e s th a t “a n ap p e a l m a y b e ta k e n f r o m ( 1 ) a n o r d e r. . . (B ) denyi ng a pet i t i on un der s ec t i on 4 o f thi s t i t l e t o o rderarbi tra t i on t o p roce ed. ” 9 U . S . C . § 1 6(a) (1)( B ). W e di sa gree w i th the no t i on thatthe di stri ctcourtdeni ed M o n u m e n ta l th e r ig h t to a rb itr a te .

“ [A ] p arty can n o tap p eal a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er u n l ess, atth e en d o f th e d ay, the part i es ar e f

orce d t o sett l e thei r di sput e other than b y a rbi tra t i on . ” A ug ust ea I m pb E tS a l va t a ggi v. M i t s ubi s hi C orp. , 126 F . 3d 95, 98–99 ( 2d. C i r . 1997) . T he di stri ctcourtcom pel l ed arbi tra t i on of the part i es ’ di sput e w i tho utdeci di ng w hether arbi tra t i on w as al so avai l abl e und erthe re t ai l i nst al l m entcont ra ct . W hen a di stri ct c our tc om pe l s a rbi tr a t i on of a di s put e unde rone c ontr a c ta nd i s s i l e nta bout w he the ra nothe rc ontr a c tpr ovi de s f ora rbi tr a t i on of

the s a m e di s put e , s e c t i on 16 (a )( 1)(B ) i s noti m pl i ca t ed. W e a l so ca nn otaf ford M on um ent al any r el i ef w ith o u t u n d e r m in in g th e e x ta n t o r d e rto c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n , w h ic h is u n r e v ie w a b le u n d e rs e c tio n 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) .

T h e ap p eal o f M o n u m en t al i s D I SM I SSED .