Opinion ID: 2823540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application to DeViedma’s Appeal

Text: Given the analytical framework we adopt today, the order before us is clearly not appealable under § 16. The Order provided: “Defendant Gaspar DeViedma’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 81, 82, and 84) is DENIED as to Count IV for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Motion is otherwise GRANTED.” (App. 3.) It made no reference to a motion to compel or to the FAA. As for DeViedma’s motion, 22 the motion was entitled, “Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Gaspar DeViedma,” and it began: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, defendant Gaspar DeViedma moves for summary judgment on Counts IV and V of the First Amended Complaint.” (DeViedma’s Mot. for Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 81.) It went on to state: “Mr. DeViedma respectfully requests that this Court enter summary judgment in its favor and dismiss plaintiffs’ case with prejudice.” (Id.) In sum, DeViedma’s motion was not captioned as a motion to compel, did not reference § 4 or § 206, and did not request an order compelling arbitration. Rather, it was captioned as a motion for summary judgment, referenced Rule 56, and requested only summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice.11 Further, there is no indication that the purported motion to compel complied with the procedural requirements of § 4. Even if we presumed Devon’s “failure, neglect, or refusal . . . to arbitrate,” there is no indication that DeViedma gave Devon “[f]ive days’ notice in writing” of his impending motion to compel via “[s]ervice . . . in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. Therefore, the motion was clearly 11 Looking at DeViedma’s Memorandum of Law in support of the motion would not change our conclusion. See App. 186 (“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, defendant . . . moves for summary judgment in his favor . . . .”); App. 189 (“DeViedma is entitled to a dismissal with prejudice of the claims against him . . . .”); App. 243 (stating in the conclusion that: “DeViedma is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on all claims against him . . . , and these claims should be dismissed with prejudice.”). 23 one for summary judgment, not to compel arbitration, and we lack jurisdiction over the order denying it. We accept at face value that Devon was on notice about DeViedma’s preference for arbitration over litigation. Indeed, Devon acknowledged as much in its opposition to DeViedma’s summary judgment motion, and the District Court even remarked, in its Order: “We revisit whether Devon must be compelled to arbitrate its claims against DeViedma . . . .” (App. 24.) Thus, no one was “prejudicially misled” in this case by DeViedma’s styling of his motion as a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to compel. See Fit Tech, 374 F.3d at 6. But our jurisdiction does not turn on whether the non-moving party was prejudiced or confused. Rather, it turns on the category of the order from which an appeal is taken, and we identify that category by looking to the terms of the order, the caption of the underlying motion, and the relief requested within. Because DeViedma filed a motion for summary judgment and not a motion to compel arbitration, we lack jurisdiction under § 16 of the FAA.