FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT April 21, 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- 12309

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 1 1 2 8 - C V- DT KH A D V A N C E D B O D Y C A R E S O L U T I O N S , L L C , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T H I O N E I N T E RN A T I O N A L , I N C ., 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 21, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

I n thi s i nt e r l oc ut ory appe a l w e m us tde c i de w he the rthe F e de r a l A rbi tr a t i on A c t p e r m its e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

a c o n tr a c t c la u s e r e q u ir in g a n a g g r ie v e d p a r ty , p r io rto f ilin g a la w s u it, to in s titu te m e d ia tio n o rn o n - b in d in g a rb itr a tio n . W e c o n c lu d e it doe s not . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng a s t a y pe ndi ng a rbi tr a t i on. I . A d v a n c e d B o d y c a r e I n te rn a tio n a l a n d T h io n e I n te rn a tio n a l I n c . a r e p a r tie s to a lic e n s in g a g r e e m e n t. T h e c o n tr a c t g r a n ts A d v a n c e d B o d y c a r e e x c lu s iv e r ig h ts to m a r k e t a n d d is tr ib u te T h io n e ’s n u tr itio n a l s u p p le m e n ts a n d a r e la te d te s tin g k it, w h ic h p u rp o r ts to m o n ito rth e a m o u n t o f f r e e r a d ic a l c e lls in th e b o d y . P u r s u a n t to th e c o n tr a c t, A d v a n c e d B o d y c a r e o r d e r e d a n d p a id f o r , a n d T h io n e s h ip p e d , a c e r ta in q u a n tity o f

s u p p le m e n ts a n d te s tin g k its , w h ic h w e r e d e liv e r e d in S ept em ber a nd D ec em ber, 20 04 . A cc ordi ng t o the com pl ai nt , A dv ance d B od yc ar e d is c o v e r e d th a t m a n y o f th e te s tin g k its w e r e d e f e c tiv e . I t r a is e d th e is s u e w ith T hi one , w hi c h, a c c or di ng t o the c om pl a i nt , e ve ntua l l y a c know l e dge d a m a nuf a c tur i ng de f

e c ta nd s hi ppe d s om e r e pl a c e m e ntuni t s i n O c t obe r2005, butnot e nough t o r e pl a c e a l l the de f e c t i ve ki t s . T hus , A dva nc e d B ody c a r e a l l e ge s T hi one is in b r e a c h o f

th e c o n tr a c t.3

T he cont ra ctcont ai ns a provi si on spec i fy i ng the procedures t o b e f ol l ow ed i n th e ev en to f a d i sp u t e. Itp ro v i d es as fo l l o w s: A . T he part i es re cogn i ze thatdi sput es as t o cer t ai n m att er s m ay f r om t i m e t o t i m e a r i s e w hi c h r e l a t e t o e i the rpa r ty ’ s r i ght s a nd/ or o b l i g at i o n s h ereu n d er. Iti s th e o b j ect i v e o f th e p art i es t o est ab l i sh pr oc e dur e s t o f

a c i l i t a t e the r e s ol ut i on of s uc h di s put e s i n a n e xpe di e nt ma n n e rb y mu tu a l c o o p e r a t i o n a n d wi th o u tr e s o r tt o l i t i g a t i o n . To ac com pl i sh thatobj ec t i ve, the part i es agre e t o fol l ow the procedures setfo rth b el o w i f an d w h en su ch a d i sp u t e ari ses b etw een th e p art i es. B . I f a ny di s put e a r i s e s be tw e e n the pa r t i e s r e l a t i ng t o the i nt e rpr e t a t i on, br e a c h[ , ] orpe r f or m a nc e of

thi s A gr e e m e ntorthe gr ounds f

orthe t e r m i na t i on the r e of , a nd the pa r t i e s c a nnotr e s ol ve the d is p u te w ith in th ir ty ( 3 0 ) d a y s o f a w r itte n r e q u e s t b y e ith e rp a r ty to the othe rpa r ty , the pa r t i e s a gr e e t o hol d a m e e t i ng, a tt e nde d by the C hi e f E xe c ut i ve O f

f i c e rorP r e s i de ntof

e a c h pa r ty , t o a tt e m pti n good fa i th t o n egot i at e are sol ut i on of the di sput e pri or t o p ursui ng other avai l abl e r em edi es . If

w i thi n si xty ( 60 ) day s a ft ersuch w ri tt en r e que s t , the pa r t i e s ha ve nots uc c e e de d i n ne got i a t i ng a r e s ol ut i on of the di s put e , s uc h di s put e s ha l l be s ubm i tt e d t o non- bi ndi ng a rbi tr a t i on orm e di a t i on w i th a m utua l l y a gr e e d upon, i nde pe nde nta rbi tr a t oror m edi at or. T he arbi tra t i on or m edi at i on shal l be hel d i n A t l ant a, G eorgi a. E ac h p arty s hal l beari t s ow n cost s a nd l egal fe es as soci at ed w ith s u c h a rb itr a tio n o rm e d ia tio n . I f n o r e s o lu tio n a c c e p tab le to b o th part i es i s r ea ched throu gh arbi tra t i on or m edi at i on , ei ther party m ay r e s o r t to in s titu tin g le g a l a c tio n a g a in s t th e o th e rin c o u r t a n d a ll r ig h ts a n d r e m e d ie s o f

th e p a r ty s h a ll b e p r e s e r v e d in s u c h a c tio n . T h is A gr e e m e nts ha l l be i nt e rpr e t e d i n a c c or da nc e w i th the l a w s of the st at e of G eorgi a. A dva nc e d B ody c a r e f

i l e d thi s s ui ti n F l or i da s t a t e c our ti n D e c e m be r2006, al l eg i n g b reach o f co n tractan d rel at ed st at e-l aw cl ai m s b ased o n th e d efect i v e t est ki t s . I tdi d notf

i r s ts e e k a rbi tr a t i on orm e di a t i on. T he c om pl a i ntw a s a m e nde d a ndRemoval was untimely . However, this is not fatal to the district court’s jurisdiction nor 1 to our s, be c a

us euntim e lin e ss i s a

“proc e dural”de fe c t in

remov al rather t

ha n a “ jurisdic tio nal” defe ct, In Re Uniroyal Goodric h Tire Co., 104 F .3d 322, 324 (11th Cir. 1997), and therefore c ann o tf o r mth eb a s i s f

o r a s u a s p o nt ere m an d . Yu s e f

z a d e hv . N e l s o nMu l l i n s Ri l e y & Scarborough LLP, 365 F.3d 1244, 1245 (11th Cir. 2004). 4 th e c a s e w a s th e n r e m o v e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A f te rr e m o v a l, T h io n e m o v e d to 1 s ta y th e s u it p e n d in g a rb itr a tio n p u r s u a n t to § 3 o f th e F e d e r a l A rb itr a tio n A c t, 9 U .S .C . § 3 ( F A A ) . T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d in a n o r d e rw h ic h is th e s u b je c t o f th is ap p e a l. I I . A dv ance d B od yc ar e a rgues w e l ac k app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on . Itcont ends there i s no app ea l abl e order, because the pert i nentpo rt i on of the F A A ’ s i nt er l ocut ory appeal prov i si on , 9 U . S . C . § 1 6(a) (1)( A ), autho ri ze s app ea l on l y of “ an order r e f u s in g a s ta y o f

a n y a c tio n u n d e rs e c tio n 3 [ o f th e F A A ],” a n d a § 3 s ta y is avai l abl e onl y w here sui ti s broug htup on an i ss ue “ re fe rabl e t o arbi tra t i on . ” 9 U . S . C . § 3. A dva nc e d B ody c a r e a r gue s thi s s ui ti s not“ r e f e r a bl e t o a rbi tr a t i on” b e c a u s e m e d ia tio n a n d n o n - b in d in g a rb itr a tio n a r e n o t e n f o r c e a b le u n d e rth e F A A . In ot her w ords, A dv ance d B od yc ar e c l ai m s thatno m att erho w T hi on e c apt i on ed i t s s t ay m ot i on , thatm ot i on w as no tre al l y pursuantt o § 3 b ec ause the cont ra ct d o e s n o tr e q u i r e “ a rb i tr a t i o n ” wi th i n th e m e a n i n g o f th e F AA . T hi s a r gum e ntm e r e l y dupl i c a t e s the m e r i t s , a nd w e r e j e c ti t . T ha tT hi one m ig h t n o t b e e n title d to a § 3 s ta y o n th e m e r its h a r d ly m e a n s it d id n o t r e q u e s t o n e .5

Iti s und i sput ed thatthe part i es ent er ed an agree m entw hi ch ca l l ed for, i nt eral i a, n o n - b in d in g a rb itr a tio n . T h u s , T h io n e m a k e s a t le a s t a c o lo r a b le c la im th a t th e r e is a n “a g r e e m e n t to a rb itr a te ,” 9 U .S .C . § 2 , a n d h e n c e th a t a § 3 s ta y is p r o p e r . A no n-fr i vo l ou s c l ai m thatthe part i es had an agreement t o arbi tra t e, coup l ed w i th an order denyi ng a s t ay , i s s uffi ci entt o con fe r app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on . S ee O m ni T ec h C o rp . v . M P C S o lu tio n s S a le s L L C , 4 3 2 F .3 d 7 9 7 , 8 0 0 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h is appr oa c h i s a l s o c ons i s t e ntw i th the tr e a tm e ntof j ur i s di c t i ona l a l l e ga t i ons i n a com pl ai nt . A com pl ai ntal l egi ng a c ol orabl e f eder al cause of a ct i on confers di stri ct courtj uri sdi ct i on even i f the com pl ai nti s ul t i m at el y di sm i ss ed for f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m . S ee S t ee l C o. v. C i t i ze ns for aB ett erE nv ’ t . , 52 3 U . S . 83 , 89 (199 8) (f ai l ure t o s t a t e a f

e de r a l c l a i m doe s notde f e a tj ur i s di c t i on unl e s s c l e a r l y f r i vol ous orm a de onl y t o a l l e ge f

e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on) . B e c a us e T hi one m a de a non- f r i vol ous m ot i on f ora s t a y pe ndi ng a rbi tr a t i on a nd tha tm ot i on w a s de ni e d, w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on. III. O n the m e r i t s , w e m us tde c i de i f ac ontr a c tunde rw hi c h di s put e s “ s ha l l be s ubm i tt e d t o non- bi ndi ng a rbi tr a t i on orm e di a t i on” i s a n a gr e e m e nt“ t o s e tt l e by a rb itr a tio n a c o n tr o v e r s y ,” 9 U .S .C . § 2 , th e r e b y m a k in g th e d is p u te “r e f e r a b le to arb i trat i o n , ” 9 U . S . C . § 3 . If so , th e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d en yi n g a st ay, b ecau se6

w h e n a d is p u te is a rb itr a b le , e n try o f a § 3 s ta y is m a n d a to ry . S e e K la y v . A ll D ef endant s, 38 9 F . 3d 11 91 , 12 04 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). T hi s c on tra ctpu rport s t o requi re “ m edi at i on or no n-bi nd i ng arbi tra t i on . ” I t is ap p a r e n t th a t a n a g g r ie v e d p a r ty h a d th e o p tio n to in itia te w h ic h e v e rp r o c e d u r e it pr e f e rr e d, be c a us e the c ontr a c tc ont a i ns no c ondi t i ons r e qui r i ng tha tone orthe othe rpr oc e dur e be i nvoke d i n c e r t a i n c i r c um s t a nc e s . A l though w e c oul d not l oc a t e a ny l a w on thi s poi nt , w e c onc l ude tha ti f e i the rm e di a t i on ornon- bi ndi ng a rbi tr a t i on i s notF A A “ a rbi tr a t i on, ” thi s a gr e e m e nti s note nf or c e a bl e unde rthe F AA . Wh e n a n a g g r i e v e d p a r ty h a s a n u n c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h tt o c h o o s e b e twe e n two orm or e di s put e r e s ol ut i on pr oc e dur e s , a nd one of the m i s notF A A a rbi tr a t i on, the c o n tr a c t is n o t o n e “to s e ttle b y a rb itr a tio n a c o n tr o v e r s y .” 9 U .S .C . § 2 . T h is is m e r e ly a n ap p lic a tio n o f th e p r in c ip le th a t a rb itr a tio n is a c r e a tu r e o f c o n tr a c t; a pa r ty m a y notbe c om pe l l e d t o a rbi tr a t e i f he di d nota gr e e t o do s o. K l a y , 389 F . 3d at12 01 . W hen an agg ri eved party m ay sa t i sf y hi s c on tra ctual du t i es un der a di sput e r es ol ut i on cl ause w i tho utun dert aki ng arbi tra t i on , he has notob l i gat ed h im s e lf to s e ttle th e d is p u te b y a rb itr a tio n . S o if e ith e rp r o c e d u r e s p e c if ie d in th is c o n tr a c t is n o t “a rb itr a tio n ” u n d e rth e F A A , w e m u s t a f f ir m th e o r d e ro n ap p e a l. W e c om e now t o the subst ant i ve qu es t i on : i s m edi at i on arbi tra t i on ? W hen p o s e d th is w a y , th e a n s w e rm a y s e e m o b v io u s . B u t th e F A A d o e s n o t d e f in e itsSee F isher v. GE Me d. Sy s., 276 F. Supp. 2d 891 (M.D. Tenn. 2003); Richard Ellis Inc. 2 v. Am. Env. Waste Mgmt., 1998 W L903495 (E.D.N.Y . Dec . 4, 1998). 7 key t erm , “ arbi tra t i on , ” a nd court s have had a di ff i cul tt i m e def

i ni ng j ustw hat ty pe s of pr oc e dur e s a r e e nf

or c e a bl e unde rthe s t a tut e . B e c a us e doubt s a bout a rbi tr a bi l i ty a r e r e s ol ve d i n f a vorof a rbi tr a t i on, s e e K l a y , 389 F . 3d a t1201, a nd because afe w di stri ctcourt s have deci ded o n thatbasi s thatm edi at i on cont ra ct s a re en fo rceab l e u n d er th e F A A , th e i ssu e m eri t s cl o se scru t i n y. 2 T hi s c i rc ui thas notenun ci at ed a t es tfor r es ol vi ng w hether apart i cul ar di s put e r e s ol ut i on pr oc e dur e i s F A A “ a rbi tr a t i on. ” O ne w i de l y - f ol l ow e d opi ni on as ks w hether the part i es have agree d t o sub m i ta di sput e t o a thi rd party f or a de c i s i on. A M F I nc . v. B runs w i c k C orp. , 621 F . S upp. 456, 460 ( E . D . N . Y . 1985) (W ei nst ei n, J. ). O ther autho ri ty c on si ders ho w cl osel y the procedure chosen re se m bl es “ cl as si c a rbi tra t i on ” a nd w hether e nforci ng i tse rves the i ntui t ed pu rposes of C on gres s. F i tT ec h v . B al l y T ot al F i tness , 37 4 F . 3d 1, 6-7 (1stC i r. 2004) ; S a l tL a ke T r i bune P ubl ’ g C o. v. M gm t . P l a nni ng I nc . , 390 F . 3d 684, 689- 90 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ). T hese di ff er i ng verbal form ul at i on s do n otconst i tut e are al di s a gr e e m e nt , be c a us e s ubm i tt i ng a di s put e t o a thi r d pa r ty f ora bi ndi ng de c i s i on i s qui nt e s s e nt i a l “ c l a s s i c a rbi tr a t i on. ” S e e S a l tL a ke T r i bune , 390 F . 3d a t689 (“ cl as si c a rbi tra t i on ” i s c hara ct er i ze d b y “ em po w er [i ng ] a thi rd party t o render a de c i s i on s e tt l i ng [ the ] di s put e ” ) . T hus , w he n the r e i s a di s put e a boutw he the ra ny8

p a r t i c u l a rd i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n m e th o d c h o s e n i n a c o n tr a c ti s F AA a rb i tr a t i o n , we w i l l l oo k for the “ com m on i nci dent s” of “ cl as si c a rbi tra t i on , ” i ncl ud i ng (i ) a n i n d ep en d en tad

j u d i cat o r, (i i ) w h o ap p l i es su b st an t i v e l eg al st an d ard s ( i . e. the pa r t i e s ’ a gr e e m e nta nd ba c kgr ound c ontr a c tl a w ) , ( i i i ) c ons i de r s e vi de nc e a nd arg u m en t(h o w ev er fo rm al l y o r i n fo rm al l y) fro m each p arty, an d (i v ) ren d ers a de c i s i on tha tpurpor t s t o r e s ol ve the r i ght s a nd dut i e s of the pa r t i e s , ty pi c a l l y by aw ar di ng dam ages or equi t abl e r el i ef . S ee F i tT ec h, 37 4 F . 3d at7. T he pres ence ora bs e nc e of

a ny one of

the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s w i l l nota l w a y s be de t e r m i na t i ve , a nd p a r tie s h a v e g r e a t f

le x ib ility u n d e rth e F A A to s e le c t p r e - p a c k a g e d d is p u te r e s ol ut i on pr oc e dur e s , ort o c r a f tthe i row n. A l though w e a c know l e dge tha tthe r e a r e f e w c l e a rrul e s i n de l i ne a t i ng the bounds of

F A A a rbi tr a t i on, w e be l i e ve the r e i s one tha tc ontr ol s thi s c a s e . T he F A A c le a r ly p r e s u m e s th a t a rb itr a tio n w ill r e s u lt in a n “a w a r d ” d e c la r in g th e r ig h ts a nd dut i e s of

the pa r t i e s . I nde e d, m uc h of a rbi tr a t i on l a w i s pr e di c a t e d on the e xi s t e nc e of

a n a w a r d: the F A A pr ovi de s tha ta n a w a r d m a y be c onf i r m e d a nd ju d g m e n t e n te r e d u p o n it if th e p a r tie s h a v e s o a g r e e d , 9 U .S .C . § 9 , o rif c ha l l e nge d i tm a y be m odi f i e d orva c a t e d by the c our ton gr ounds e s t a bl i s he d by l aw . S ee 9 U . S . C . § 1 0 (st atut ory groun ds for vac atur); 9 U . S . C . § 1 1 (st atut ory gr ounds f

orm odi f i c a t i on) ; B L H a rbe r tI nt ’ l L L C v. H e r c ul e s S t e e l C o. , 441 F . 3dThe inver se is not true, however. Thepresence of an aw ard doe s not by

itself make a 3 proc e dure“ arb itratio n”if theproc e dure s th at prod

uc etheawa

rd be ar n o re sembl anc eto c la ssi c arbitration. The parties c ould not contrac t for a bindingcoin flip, with the winner to rece ive an awa rd of his choic e, and e xpect the agreement to be enf orce d under theFAA . 9 9 0 5 , 9 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( ju d ic ia lly - c r e a te d g r o u n d s f o rv a c a tu r ) . I f

a d is p u te r e s ol ut i on pr oc e dur e doe s notpr oduc e s om e ty pe of a w a r d tha tc a n be m e a n in g f

u lly c o n f ir m e d , m o d if

ie d , o rv a c a te d b y a c o u r t u p o n p r o p e rm o tio n , it is n o ta rb i tr a t i o n wi th i n th e s c o p e o f th e F AA . 3 T hi s bri gh tl i ne rul e m akes se nse noton l y i n l i gh tof the F A A ’ s s t atut ory s truc tur e buti t s s t a tut ory purpos e s a s w e l l . T he purpos e of the F A A i s t o “ r e l i e ve c onge s t i on i n the c our t s a nd t o pr ovi de pa r t i e s w i th a n a l t e rna t i ve m e thod of di sput e r es ol ut i on thati s s peedi erand l es s c ost l y than l i t i gat i on . ” A IG B aker S t er l i ng H ei gh t s L L C v. A m . M ul t i -C i nem a I nc. , 50 8 F . 3d 99 5, 10 01 (11t h C i r. 2007) . B ut“ [ t ] he l a uda t ory goa l s of the F A A w i l l be a c hi e ve d onl y t o the e xt e nt thatcourt s e nsure a rbi tra t i on i s a n al t ernat i ve t o l i t i gat i on , no tan addi t i on al l ay er in a p r o tr a c te d c o n te s t.” B L H a rb e r t I n t’l, 4 4 1 F .3 d a t 9 0 7 . W h e n , a s h e r e , a p a r ty h a s c o n tr a c tu a lly p r e s e r v e d a ll its r ig h ts a n d r e m e d ie s in c o u r t a n d is u n w illin g to u n d ert ak e m ed i at i o n v o l u n t ari l y, th e F A A ’ s g o al o f m i n i m i zi n g th e t i m e an d co st of l i t i ga t i on i s i l l - s e r ve d by a pr e f a t ory r ound of

m ot i ons pr a c t i c e . U nl i ke su b m i tt i n g a d i sp u t e t o a p ri v at e ad j u d i cat o r, w h i ch th e F A A co n t em p l at es, com pel l i ng a par ty t o sub m i tt o sett l em entt al ks i tdo es no tw i sh t o ent erand w hi chB e c a us ethec ontra c t di d n ot spe c if y any pa rticula r a rb itratio n o r m e diatio n p ro toc ols , 4 our discus sio n o f t

he seproc e dure s is ne c e ssa ri ly sty lize d. No rm ally

la be ls do n ot c ontrol; inde e d, if an agre e ment spe c if

ie s in de tail a disputere so lution

proc e durewhic h it

c alls “ me diatio n”(o r a

ny thinge lse ) but which is , in su bs tanc e , F AA“ arb itratio n, ”su bs tanc ec ontrols over title. B ut here , where the agreement provides for “mediation” but provides no further description of the proce dures to be employed, our a nalysis mustfocus on a

ty pical mediation, be c a us ewepre sume , in

thea bs e nc eof c ontrary e vide nc e , th at th epa

rtie s u se d th eterm

in its ordinary sense. SeeSt. C harle s Foods, Inc. v. America’ s Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F .3d 815, 819 n.3 (11th Cir. 1999) (summarizing G eorg ia law of contract interpretation). 10 c a n n o t r e s o lv e th e d is p u te o f th e iro w n f

o r c e m a y w e ll i ncre ase the t i m e a nd tr e a s ur e s pe nti n l i t i ga t i on. T h e s e p r in c ip le s le a d c le a r ly to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t m e d ia tio n is n o t w ith in the F A A ’ s s c ope . I nde e d, a s a l e a di ng di s put e r e s ol ut i on s c hol a re xpl a i ne d, “ the l a w of a rbi tr a t i on i s i n ne a r l y e ve ry r e s pe c ta n i l l ogi c a l f ounda t i on f

ore nf or c e m e nt of m edi at i on agre em ent s. ” T ho m as S t i pano w i ch, T he A rbi tra t i on P enum bra: A rb itr a tio n L a w a n d th e R ap id ly C h a n g in g L a n d s c ap e o f D is p u te R e s o lu tio n , 8 N e v. L . J . 427, 446 ( 2007) . M e di a t i on, a s tha tt e r m i s c om m onl y unde r s t ood, i s a 4

“ m etho d o f non bi nd i ng di sput e r es ol ut i on i nv ol vi ng a neutra l thi rd party w ho tri es t o h el p the di sput i ng part i es re ac h a m utual l y a gree abl e s ol ut i on , ” B l ac k’ s L aw D i ct i on ary 996 (7th ed. 19 99 ), or “ a proces s i n w hi ch a m edi at or fa ci l i t at es c om m uni c a t i on a nd ne got i a t i on be tw e e n pa r t i e s t o a s s i s tthe m i n r e a c hi ng a v o lu n ta ry a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d in g th e ird is p u te .” U n if . M e d ia tio n A c t § 2 ( 1 ) . S im p ly st at ed, m edi at i on do es no tre sol ve a di sput e, i tm er el y hel ps the part i es do so. In c o n tr a s t, th e F A A p r e s u m e s th a t th e a rb itr a tio n p r o c e s s its e lf w i l l prod uce a11

r e s ol ut i on i nde pe nde ntof the pa r t i e s ’ a c qui e s c e nc e – a n a w a r d w hi c h de c l a r e s the p a r tie s ’ r ig h ts a n d w h ic h m a y b e c o n f ir m e d w ith th e f

o r c e o f a ju d g m e n t. T h a t a typi ca l m edi at i on prod uces no aw ar d i s hi gh l y probat i ve evi dence thatan a gr e e m e ntt o m e di a t e a di s put e i s not“ a n a gr e e m e ntt o s e tt l e by a rbi tr a t i on a c o n tr o v e r s y .” 9 U .S .C . § 2 . P a r tie s to a m e d ia tio n c o n tr a c t h a v e n o t “a g r e e d to s ubm i ta di s put e f

orde c i s i on by a thi r d pa r ty , ” A M F , I nc . , 621 F . S upp. a t460, be c a us e the thi r d pa r ty m a ke s no de c i s i on. I n s hor t , be c a us e the m e di a t i on pr oc e s s doe s notpurpor tt o a dj udi c a t e or r e s o lv e a c a s e in a n y w a y , it is n o t “a rb itr a tio n ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F A A . A c c o r d in g ly , F A A r e m e d ie s , in c lu d in g m a n d a to ry s ta y s a n d m o tio n s to c o m p e l, a r e notappr opr i a t e l y i nvoke d t o c om pe l m e di a t i on. F ur the r , a di s put e r e s ol ut i on c l a us e tha tm a y be s a t i s f i e d by a rbi tr a t i on o r m ed iati o n , at th e a g g riev ed p ar ty’s opt i on, i s not“ a n a gr e e m e ntt o s e tt l e by a rbi tr a t i on a c ontr ove r s y ” a nd thus i s not e n f o r c e a b l e u n d e rth e F AA e i th e r . B e c a u s e we d e c i d e th e c a s e o n th i s b a s i s , we re se rve f or anot her dayw hether non- bi ndi nga rbi tr a t i on i s w i thi n the s c ope of the F AA . W e e m pha s i z e the l i m i t e d na tur e of ourrul i ng. T hi s opi ni on s houl d notbe r e a d a s de ni gr a t i ng m e di a t i on – qui t e the c ontr a ry . W e e nc our a ge pa r t i e s t o m a ke lib e r a l u s e o f

it, a n d w e e n c o u r a g e d is tr ic t c o u r ts to lib e r a lly e m p lo y a n y a u th o r itySee Or teg a Trujillo v. Conover &Co. Comm s. Inc., 221 F .3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 5 2000) (c itations omi tted). 12 they have und erl ocal rul es t o o rderm edi at i on sua s po nt e w hen d oi ng so m ay expedi t e the re sol ut i on of a c as e. N or do w e hol d thatagre em ent s t o m edi at e a re per s e unenforceabl e. T hey m i gh tbe spec i fi ca l l y e nforceabl e i n con tra ctor un der o th e rla w ; th a t is s u e is n o t b e f o r e u s . F in a lly , w e e m p h a s iz e th a t w e d o n o t h o ld thatst ay s i n ai d o f m edi at i on ar e perse i m perm i ss i bl e. T o the cont ra ry , di stri ct co u rt s h av e i n h eren t , d i scret i o n ary au th o ri ty t o i ssu e st ays i n m an y ci rcu m st an ces, 5 a n d g r a n tin g a s ta y to p e r m it m e d ia tio n ( o rto r e q u ir e it) w ill o f te n b e ap p r o p r ia te . W e m e r e ly h o ld th a t th e m a n d a to ry r e m e d ie s o f th e F A A m a y n o t b e in v o k e d to c om pe l m e di a t i on. AF F I RME D.