Document: Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NITRO-LIFT TECHNOLOGIES, L. C. v. EDDIE LEE HOWARD ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO OKLAHOMA No. 11–1377. Decided November 26, 2012 PER CURIAM. State courts rather than federal are most fre­ quently called upon to apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S. §1 et seq., including Act’s national policy favoring arbitration. It is a matter of great im­ portance, therefore, that state supreme adhere correct interpretation legislation. Here, Okla­ homa Supreme Court failed do so. By declaring noncompetition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, leaving determination arbitrator first instance, court ignored basic tenet substantive arbitration law. The decision must be vacated. * This dispute arises from contract between petitioner Nitro-Lift Technologies, C., its former employees. with operators oil gas wells provide services enhance production. Respondents Eddie Lee Howard Shane D. Schneider entered confidentiality agreement contained following clause: “ ‘Any dispute, difference or unresolved question be­ tween Employee (collectively “Disputing Parties”) shall settled by single mutually agreeable Disput­ ing Parties an proceeding conducted 2 Houston, Texas accordance rules existing at date hereof American Associ­ ation.’ ” Pet. for Cert. 5. After working on Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, respondents quit began one Nitro-Lift’s competitors. Claiming had breached their agreements, served them demand then filed suit District Johnston County, asking declare void enjoin enforcement. dismissed complaint, finding con­ tracts valid clauses under which arbitrator, not court, settle parties’ disagreement. Oklahoma retained respondents’ appeal ordered parties show cause why should resolved application Okla. Stat., Tit. 15, §219A (West 2011), limits en­ forceability agreements. argued any as contracts’ enforceability was arbitrator. relied support— it done before trial court—upon several this Court’s cases interpreting FAA, noted Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. Cardegna, 546 440, 446 (2006), “this law applies both courts.” Record 109,003 (Okla.), p. 273. persuaded. held despite “[U. S.] employers rely,” “existence does prohibit judicial review underlying agreement.” 2011 OK 98, ¶15, n. 20, ¶16, 273 P.3d 27. For prop­ osition, “exhaustive overview United States decisions construing Act” Bruner Timberlane Manor 3 Ltd. Partnership, 2006 90, 155 16, found jurisprudence “not inhibit our contract’s validity.” P. 3d, 26. Finding no obstacle review, were “void unenforceable against Oklahoma’s public policy,” expressed §219A. declared rests adequate independent grounds. Id., 23–24, If so, we would have jurisdiction over case. See Michigan Long, 463 1032, 1037–1044 (1983). however, because court’s reliance “independent”— necessarily depended rejection claim, ‘properly presented to’ ‘ad­ dressed by’ court. Howell Mississippi, 543 443 (2005) (per curiam) (quoting Adams Robertson, 520 83, 86 (1997) curiam)). Nitro- Lift claimed decide tract’s validity, raised federal-law basis claim relying FAA. ‘[A] litigant wishing raise issue can easily indicate his state-court petition brief . citing conjunction source he relies case deciding such grounds .’ Howell, supra, 444 Baldwin Reese, 541 27, 32 (2004); emphasis added). acknowledged relied, well relevant holdings, but chose discount these controlling decisions. Its conclusion that, jurisprudence, valid­ ity purely deter­ mination all more reason assert jurisdiction. 4 disregards precedents That Act, “de­ clare[s] arbitration,” Southland Corp. Keating, 465 1, 10 (1984), provides “written provision evidencing transac­ tion involving commerce contro­ versy thereafter arising out transaction valid, irrevocable, enforceable, save exist equity revocation contract.” §2. “the created [is] applicable Corp., 12; see also Buckeye, 446. And when commit arbitrate contractual disputes, mainstay attacks validity tract, distinct arbi­ tration clause itself, “by court.” Preston Ferrer, 552 346, 349 (2008); Prima Paint Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 395 (1967). purposes, “arbitration severable remainder contract,” 445, subject initial determination; (if valid) decide. principle requires below va­ cated. clause, did hold otherwise. nonetheless assumed arbitrator’s role agree­ ments void. insisted “[own] controls issue” permits “contract submitted where party assert[s] unenforceable.” But 5 abide Law Land,” Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, opinions “It responsibility say what statute means, once has spoken, duty other respect understanding governing rule law.” Rivers Roadway Express, Inc., 511 298, 312 (1994). Our FAA forecloses pre­ cisely type “judicial hostility towards arbitration.” AT&T Mobility LLC Concepcion, 563 ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., 8). reasoned “ad­ dressing covenants compete, govern general 21. ancient interpretive prin­ ciple specific governs (generalia spe- cialibus non derogant) only conflict laws equivalent dignity. Where statute, example, conflicts constitutional provision, latter governs. same true statute. There general-specific exception Supremacy Clause, Const. 2. ‘[W]hen prohibits outright particular analysis straightforward: conflicting displaced FAA.’ Marmet Health Care Center, Brown, 565 ___–___ 3–4) LLC, 6–7)). Hence, instance whether compete S., 445–446. foregoing reasons, certiorari granted. judgment Oklaho­ ma vacated, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. so ordered.

Category: 6