Opinion ID: 1837578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the arbitration rider is part of a contract evidencing interstate commerce.

Text: ¶ 11. In Battle, 873 So.2d at 82, the Court stated: The Federal Arbitration Act provides: A written provision in any ... contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. 9 U.S.C. § 2. This Court will respect the right of an individual or an entity to agree in advance of a dispute to arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution. Russell, 826 So.2d at 721-22(¶ 6) (citing IP Timberlands, 726 So.2d at 104 (¶ 29)). This Court has endorsed the undisputed province of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16(FAA), and recognized its clear authority to govern agreements formed in interstate commerce wherein a contractual provision provides for alternative dispute resolution. IP Timberlands, 726 So.2d at 107. ¶ 12. This Court has held: In determining the validity of a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts generally conduct a two-pronged inquiry. The first prong has two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the parties' dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. ... The second prong considers whether legal constraints external to the parties' agreement foreclosed arbitration of those claims. Doleac, 911 So.2d at 501 (citing Sullivan v. Mounger, 882 So.2d 129, 132 (Miss.2004)). ¶ 13. In Vicksburg Partners, L.P. v. Stephens, 911 So.2d 507, 514-15 (Miss. 2005), we stated: A threshold determination which must be considered is whether the parties' admission agreement falls within the provisions of § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The FAA requires that `we rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate.' East Ford, 826 So.2d at 713 (citing Shearson/Am. Exp. Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2337, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987)). Specifically, § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, relates to the enforceability of arbitration provisions.... In Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995), ... the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase involving commerce is to be interpreted broadly and was the functional equivalent of the phrase affecting commerce, which signals Congress' intent to exercise its Commerce Clause powers to the fullest extent. Id. at 273-74, 115 S.Ct. 834. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court once again sought to quantify the broad effect of the FAA as implemented through Congress' Commerce Clause power. In Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 123 S.Ct. 2037, 156 L.Ed.2d 46 (2003), ... the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress' Commerce Clause power `may be exercised in individual cases without showing any specific effect upon interstate commerce' if in the aggregate the economic activity in question would represent `a general practice ... subject to federal control.' 539 U.S. at 56-57, 123 S.Ct. at 2040 (citing Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. Am. Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 236, 68 S.Ct. 996, 92 L.Ed. 1328 (1948)). See also Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127-128, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). This case clearly falls within the broad purview of the Federal Arbitration Act. Accordingly, singular agreements between care facilities and care patients, when taken in the aggregate, affect interstate commerce. As stated in Alafabco, [o]nly the general practice need bear on interstate commerce in a substantial way. 539 U.S. at 57, 123 S.Ct. at 2040 (citing Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196-97 n. 27, 88 S.Ct. 2017, 20 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1968); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37-38, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937)). ¶ 14. Here, as in Vicksburg Partners, the contract in the aggregate involves economic activity affecting interstate commerce. Id. at 515. Furthermore, the Borrowers are all resident citizens of Mississippi, and EquiFirst is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina. Therefore, we find the Federal Arbitration Act is applicable. Id.