Document: 537 U.S. 79 HOWSAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE E. RICHARD JR., IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST DATED MAY 14, 1982v.DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. No. 01-800. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 9, 2002. Decided December 10, Per respondent Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.'s standard client agreement, petitioner Howsam chose to arbitrate her dispute with the company before National Association Securities Dealers (NASD). NASD's Code Arbitration Procedure § 10304 states that no "shall be eligible for submission ... where six (6) years have elapsed from occurrence or event giving rise dispute." filed this suit, asking Federal District declare ineligible arbitration because it was more than old and seeking an injunction prohibit proceeding in arbitration. The court dismissed action, stating NASD arbitrator should interpret apply rule. In reversing, Tenth Circuit found rule's application presented a question underlying dispute's "arbitrability"; presumption is will ordinarily decide arbitrability question. Held: An time limit rule dispute. Pp. 83-86. (a) "[A]rbitration matter contract party cannot required submit any which he has not agreed so submit." Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U. S. 574, 582. whether parties submitted particular arbitration, i. e., "question arbitrability," "an issue judicial determination [u]nless clearly unmistakably provide otherwise." AT&T Technologies, Inc. Communications Workers, 475 643, 649. phrase arbitrability" limited scope, applicable kind narrow circumstance contracting would likely expected decided gateway matter. But other kinds general expect question— "`procedural' questions grow out bear on its final disposition," John Wiley Sons, Livingston, 376 543, 557, "allegation[s] waiver, delay, like defense Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 1, 24-25. Following precedent, but "aspec[t] [controversy] called grievance procedures into play." Inc., supra, at 559. arbitrators, comparatively expert about their own meaning, are better able it. absence statement contrary reasonable infer intended agreement reflect understanding. And law assume expectation aligns (1) decisionmaker (2) comparative expertise help secure controversy's fair expeditious resolution. (b) Witter's argument that, even without antiarbitration presumption, contracts call unpersuasive. word "eligible" Code's does not, as claims, indicate parties' intent resolved by prior Parties normally forum-based forum-specific procedural matters, temptation here place special weight counterbalanced "arbitrators shall empowered determine applicability" all code provisions, 10324. P. 86. 261 F. 3d 956, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, concurring judgment, post, p. 87. O'CONNOR, took part consideration decision case. CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Alan Friedberg argued cause briefs petitioner. Matthew D. Roberts Exchange Commission amicus curiae urging reversal. With him brief were Solicitor General Olson, Deputy Kneedler, Meyer Eisenberg, Jacob Stillman, Mark Pennington. Kenneth W. Starr respondent. Steven G. Bradbury, Daryl Joseffer, Ashley Parrish, Donald Kempf, Jr., Bradford Kaufman.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 This case focuses upon . (1984) (NASD Code). We must controversy. conclude arbitrator. 2 * controversy arises investment advice (Dean Witter), provided client, Karen Howsam, when, some between 1986 1994, recommended she buy hold interests four partnerships. says misrepresented virtues resulting falls within Client Service Agreement's clause, provides: 3 "[A]ll controversies concerning arising account , transaction construction, performance breach us determined self-regulatory organization exchange member." App. 6-7. 4 also provides can select forum. NASD. 5 To obtain signed Uniform Submission Agreement. That specified "present controversy" "in accordance with" "Code Procedure." Id., 24. contains provision here, 10304. 6 After Agreement executed, lawsuit It asked "ineligible arbitration" old. 45. sought action ground arbitrator, court, Appeals Circuit, however, 956 (2001). view, "arbitrability" See, e. g., First Options Chicago, Kaplan, 514 938 (1995). 7 Courts reached different conclusions primarily Compare, F.3d (CA10 2001) (case below) (holding court); J. Liss Co. Levin, 201 848, 851 (CA7 2000) (same), PaineWebber Elahi, 87 589 (CA1 1996) 15, currently 10304, presumptively arbitrator); Smith Barney Shearson, Boone, 47 750 (CA5 1995) (same). granted Howsam's petition certiorari resolve disagreement. we now II 8 "arbitration 582 (1960); see Options, 942-943. Although long recognized enforced "liberal federal policy favoring agreements," 24-25 (1983), made clear there exception policy: 649 (1986) (emphasis added); 944. scope last-mentioned interpretive 9 Linguistically speaking, one might potentially dispositive answer proceed merits. Court's law, makes purposes applying rule, far scope. See S., 942. matter, they thought had do so, and, consequently, reference avoids risk forcing may well arbitrate. 10 Thus, bound given clause raises decide. id., 943-946 who did sign agreement); 546-547 (1964) survived corporate merger corporation). Similarly, disagreement concededly binding applies type court. 651-652 labor-management layoff collective-bargaining Atkinson Sinclair Refining 370 238, 241-243 (1962) providing various "grievances" covers claims damages no-strike agreement). 11 At same Thus disposition" judge, Wiley, 557 first two steps procedure completed, these prerequisites arbitration). So, too, arbitrability." Hospital, Indeed, Revised Act 2000 (RUAA), "incorporate holdings vast majority state courts developed under [Federal Act]," "arbitrator condition precedent been fulfilled." RUAA 6(c), comment 2, L. A. 12-13 (Supp. 2002). comments add contrary, issues substantive arbitrability, such limits, notice, laches, estoppel, conditions obligation met, arbitrators decide." 6, A., 13 added). 12 find applicability judge. closely resembles "questions (referring "waiver, defense"). Such seems Moreover, meaning Cf. 944-945. resolution controversy—a goal systems alike. 14 consequently class disputes present what our cases strong pro-court apply. III 15 argues event, calling execution 1997 effectively incorporated agreement. notes uses "eligible." word, indicates 16 how so. For reasons stated Part II, matters. appearance rule; provisions Code." 17 Consequently, arbitration-disfavoring rather held IV 18 reasons, judgment 19 Reversed. 20 O'CONNOR Notes: Briefs ofamici affirmance Competitive Enterprise Institute Boyden Gray James V. DeLong; Industry Douglas R. Cox Stuart Kaswell. Paul Bland, Deborah M. Zuckerman, Michael Schuster Trial Lawyers Public Justice et al. amici curiae. judgment. As precedents make notes, contract. Ante, 83. Volt Information Sciences, Board Trustees Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 468 (1989), enforce private agreements just ordinary contracts: terms. Under Volt, when choice-of-law provision, honored, interpreting follow jurisdiction selected parties. 478-479 (enforcing proceedings); Mastrobuono Shearson Lehman Hutton, 52, 67 (1995) (THOMAS, dissenting) (concluding indistinguishable thus, effect). A straightforward principles easily resolves construed laws State New York." 6. Interpreting containing virtually identical ones York implicating (now 10304) Sacharow, 91 N. Y. 2d 39, 689 884 (1997). Because requires I permit arisen case, provides. follows route reach conclusion; accordingly, concur only

Category: 7