Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf
Page Number: 4

2 

SMITH v. SPIZZIRRI 

Opinion of the Court 

the FAA required the District Court to stay the action pend-
ing arbitration rather than dismissing it entirely. 

The District Court issued an order compelling arbitration 
and dismissing the case without prejudice.  The court noted 
that  “the  text  of  9  U. S. C.  §3  suggests  that  the  action 
should  be  stayed,”  but  that  Circuit  precedent  “instructed
that ‘notwithstanding the language of §3,  a district court 
may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when, . . . 
the court determines that all of the claims raised in the ac-
tion are subject to arbitration.’ ”  Forrest v. Spizzirri, 2022 
WL 2191931, *1 (D Ariz., June 17, 2022) (quoting Johnmo-
hammadi  v.  Bloomingdale’s,  Inc.,  755  F. 3d  1072,  1074 
(CA9  2014)).  Because  “all  claims  raised  [were]  subject  to 
arbitration,” the District Court concluded that it “retain[ed]
discretion to dismiss the action.”  2022 WL 2191931, *1. 

The  Ninth  Circuit  affirmed.    While  that  court  likewise 
acknowledged  that  “the  plain  text  of  the  FAA  appears  to
mandate a stay,” the court explained that it was bound by
Circuit  precedent  recognizing  the  District  Court’s  “discre-
tion to dismiss.”  Forrest v. Spizzirri, 62 F. 4th 1201, 1203, 
1205  (2023).    Judge  Graber,  joined  by  Judge  Desai,  con-
curred,  asserting  that  the  Ninth  Circuit’s  position  was
wrong  and  urging  this  Court  “to  take  up  this  question,
which  it  has  sidestepped  previously,  and  on  which  the
courts of appeals are divided.”  Id., at 1206 (citation omit-
ted).

This  Court  granted  certiorari  to  answer  the  question  it 
previously left open and resolve the Circuit split.1  601 U. S. 

—————— 

1 This  Court  has  previously  reserved  the  question  presented  by  this 
case.  See Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U. S. 79, 87, 
n. 2 (2000) (“Had the District Court entered a stay instead of a dismissal 
in  this  case,  that  order  would  not  be  appealable. . . . The  question 
whether the District Court should have taken that course is not before 
us, and we do not address it”); see also Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 
U. S. 176, 181, n. 1 (2019) (noting that the Court reserved this question 
in Randolph and that it remained unanswered).