Opinion ID: 71709
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of a Section 4 Petition

Text: The FAA provides that “an appeal may be taken from . . . an order . . . denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed . . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(b). Section 4, in turn, provides: A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under Title 28 . . . for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. . . If no jury trial be demanded by the party 1 (c) Removed Actions. (1) Applicability. These rules apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court. (2) Further Pleading. After removal, repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c). 2 (c) Relation Back of Amendments. (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: . . . (B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or attempted to be set out--in the original pleading . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). 4 Case: 09-10424 Document: 00511039061 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2010 No. 09-10424 alleged to be in default . . . the court shall hear and determine such issue. 9 U.S.C. § 4. Section 16(a)(1)(b) typically applies to denials of motions to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Agere Sys., Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 560 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2009); Eman-Henshaw v. Park Plaza Hosp., 129 F.3d 610 (5th Cir. 1997). Although Ameser does seek a new arbitration in his Motion to Vacate, that request for relief alone does not place his motion within the jurisdictional parameters of § 16(a)(1)(b). In support of his § 16(a)(1)(b) jurisdictional argument, Ameser cites only Republic Insurance Co. v. PAICO Receivables, LLC, 383 F.3d 341, 344 (5th Cir. 2004). In Republic, a party to litigation proceeded through the pre-trial process and asserted the right to arbitration just days before trial; the district court concluded that the party had waived its right to arbitrate. Id. Here, in stark contrast to Republic, Nordstrom and Ameser have already arbitrated the claim at issue. Ameser additionally argues that under § 16(a)(1)(b) Nordstrom has refused to arbitrate under the terms of the written arbitration agreement, as required by § 4. Ameser asserts that Harmon did not “disclose any information that may . . . create an appearance of bias” as required by the Nordstrom Dispute Resolution Program arbitration agreement, and therefore the arbitration did not “proceed in the manner provided for in [the] agreement.” But Nordstrom never refused an arbitrator that satisfied the requirements of the agreement; at the time of the arbitration Ameser did not formally object to Harmon or request a different arbitrator—it is only post-decision that Ameser has objected.