Opinion ID: 901341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion to Compel Alternative Dispute Resolution

Text: [¶ 21.] Johnson alternatively argues that [u]nder the South Dakota Uniform Arbitration Act, `[a]ny action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under § 21-25A-5....' See SDCL 21-25A-7. [8] (Emphasis added). Johnson argues that the issues previously discussed (arbitrability, breach of contract, and product quality) involved non-aesthetic arbitrable matters that could not be severed from the aesthetic claim. However, we have previously concluded that none of these underlying issues were subject to arbitration. Because these underlying issues were not subject to arbitration, the trial court correctly concluded that Johnson was not entitled to compel arbitration. [¶ 22.] Affirmed. [¶ 23.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP and MEIERHENRY, Justices, and ENG, Circuit Judge, concur. [¶ 24.] ENG, Circuit Judge, sitting for SABERS, Justice, disqualified.