9 USCS § 3

UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE
Copyright © 2002 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,
one of the LEXIS Publishing (TM) companies
All rights reserved

*** CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 209, APPROVED 8/6/02 ***

TITLE 9. ARBITRATION
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION

9 USCS § 3 (2002)

I. IN GENERAL

1. Generally
   Section 3 of the United States Arbitration Act (9 USCS § 3) applies only where such agreement is of kind specified in § 2 of Act (9 USCS § 2) that is, agreement in maritime transaction or in contract evidencing transaction in interstate or foreign commerce, as defined in § 1 of act. Bernhardt v Polygraphic Co. of America (1956) 350 US 198, 100 L Ed 199, 76 S Ct 273, 29 CCH LC P 69689.
   In action arising under laws of United States, 9 USCS § 3 applies when arbitration agreement is validated by 9 USCS § 2 and also when agreement to arbitrate is validated by applicable state law. United States use of Capolino Sons, Inc. v Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc. (1966, CA2 NY) 364 F2d 705, cert dismd (1966) 385 US 924, 17 L Ed 2d 148, 87 S Ct 239.
Arbitration Act requires separation of arbitral "issues" from non-arbitral ones; there is no difference between "claim" referred to in precedent and "issue" referred to in statute. Summer Rain v Donning Company/Publishers, Inc. (1992, CA4 Va) 964 F2d 1455, amd (1992, CA4 NC) slip op.
   Upon finding that claim is subject to arbitration, court should order stay rather than dismissal. Bender v A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (1992, CA11 Fla) 971 F2d 698, 59 BNA FEP Cas 1231, 59 CCH EPD P 41760, 6 FLW Fed C 1102.
   If arbitration is indicated by contract, then stay is required by statute. Pearce v E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. (1987, App DC) 264 US App DC 246, 828 F2d 826.
   Stay provisions of 9 USCS § 3 were not limited to cases resting on maritime transactions or on contracts evidencing transactions involving commerce. Wilson & Co. v Fremont Cake & Meal Co. (1948, DC Neb) 77 F Supp 364.
Arbitration agreements are purely matters of contract, and effect of 9 USCS § 3 is to make contracting party live up to his agreement by disallowing him to refuse to perform his contract when it becomes disadvantageous to him. Tepper Realty Co. v Mosaic Tile Co. (1966, SD NY) 259 F Supp 688.
   Under Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) federal court is empowered to stay its proceedings where issue involved is referable to arbitration under agreement to arbitrate found in contract evincing transaction in commerce. Lawson Fabrics, Inc. v Akzona, Inc. (1973, SD NY) 355 F Supp 1146, affd without op (1973, CA2 NY) 486 F2d 1394.
   Where parties to suit had not joined in agreement requiring arbitration, suit would not be stayed because arbitration would not resolve litigation. Bunge Corp. v MV Furness Bridge (1974, ED La) 390 F Supp 603.
   In determining whether or not Federal Arbitration Act applies to contract (1) there must be written provision for arbitration in contract (9 USCS § 2), (2) contract must evidence transaction involving commerce (9 USCS §§ 1 and 2), (3) court must be satisfied that issue involved in suit is referable to arbitration under written agreement (9 USCS § 2), and (4) applicant for stay must not be in default in proceeding with such arbitration (9 USCS § 3). Episcopal Hous. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co. (1977) 269 SC 631, 239 SE2d 647.

2. Constitutionality
   Power to enact 9 USCS § 3 derives from Article III, Section 2 of Constitution. Bernhardt v Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. (1955, CA2 Vt) 218 F2d 948, 27 CCH LC P 68963, revd on other grounds (1956) 350 US 198, 100 L Ed 199, 76 S Ct 273, 29 CCH LC P 69689.

3. Purpose
   Employment agreement stating that controversies "regarding employer's right to terminate this agrement shall be specifically excluded from the foregoing" arbitration requirement was clear and unambiguous; thus, suit by employer for wrongful termination would not be stayed for arbitration. Keymer v Management Recruiters Int'l, Inc. (1999, CA8 Mo) 169 F3d 501, 78 BNA FEP Cas 1864.
   Stay of proceedings pending arbitration provided by 9 USCS § 3 is clearly remedy intended for defendant who wants to compel plaintiff to arbitration, but not for plaintiff whose invocation of federal district court's jurisdiction must be under 9 USCS §§ 201 et seq. (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards). Metropolitan World Tanker, Corp. v P. N. Pertambangan Minjakdangas Bumi Nasional (P. M. Pertamina) (1975, SD NY) 427 F Supp 2.
   One purpose of United States Arbitration Act was to facilitate settlement of disputes and avoid delay caused by litigation; therefore, party may be found in default pursuant to 9 USCS § 3 if claimed right to arbitration would result in furthering delays. Trade Arbed, Inc. v S/S Ellispontos (1980, SD Tex) 482 F Supp 991.

4. Construction
   Stay provided in 9 USCS § 3 reaches only those contracts covered by §§ 1 and 2 of Arbitration Act (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) and §§ 1, 2 and 3 of that act are integral parts of whole. Bernhardt v Polygraphic Co. of America (1956) 350 US 198, 100 L Ed 199, 76 S Ct 273, 29 CCH LC P 69689.
   Question of whether, in contract involving commerce, there is agreement to arbitrate issue or dispute upon which suit has been brought is governed by federal law, and concomitantly, questions of interpretation and construction of such arbitration agreements are similarly to be determined by reference to federal law. Becker Autoradio U.S.A., Inc. v Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH (1978, CA3 Pa) 585 F2d 39.
9 USCS § 3 gives court authority, upon application by one of parties, to grant stay pending arbitration, but does not preclude summary judgment when all claims are barred by arbitration clause, and does not limit court's authority to grant dismissal. Sparling v Hoffman Constr. Co. (1988, CA9 Alaska) 864 F2d 635.
   Notwithstanding terms of 9 USCS § 3, dismissal is proper remedy when all of issues presented in lawsuit are arbitrable; thus, stay is not sole remedy available under statute. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc. (2001, CA4 Md) 252 F3d 707.
   Case law interpreting 9 USCS § 3 makes clear that language is to be read literally; thus, so long as (1) there is agreement to arbitrate, and (2) at least one of issues involved in suit is within scope of arbitration agreement, stay is to be granted as matter of course, except in rare cases. China Union Lines, Ltd. v American Marine Underwriters, Inc. (1978, SD NY) 458 F Supp 132.
   Under 9 USCS § 3, if arbitration clause is broad, action should be stayed and arbitrators should be permitted to decide whether dispute falls within clause, and, if clause is narrow, matter should not be referred to arbitration or action stayed, unless court determines that dispute falls within clause. Morrison v Amway Corp. (1998, SD Tex) 49 F Supp 2d 529.

5. --Agreement in writing
   There is no written arbitration provision included in contract created under UCC § 2-207(3) where parties proceeded to performance (arbitration clause in seller's form not being supplementary term incorporated into contract created by performance), and where no contract was established by exchange of writings. C. Itoh & Co. v Jordan International Co. (1977, CA7 Ill) 552 F2d 1228, 21 UCCRS 353.
   Meaning of "agreement in writing" is limited by 9 USCS § 2. Zip Mfg. Co. v Pep Mfg. Co. (1930, DC Del) 44 F2d 184.
   Under 9 USCS § 1 question is merely whether parties manifested mutual intent to arbitrate dispute arising out of contracts, and fact that arbitration agreement is not expressed in body of contract but is annexed is not decisive. Tepper Realty Co. v Mosaic Tile Co. (1966, SD NY) 259 F Supp 688.
   Defendant's motion to stay trial of action pursuant to 9 USCS § 3 must be denied where he fails to carry his burden of proving existence of agreement in writing for arbitration. Ocean Industries, Inc. v Soros Associates International, Inc. (1971, SD NY) 328 F Supp 944.
   Federal securities law claims by investors will not be dismissed or stayed in favor of arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, where option trading agreement between investors and broker called for arbitration of such claims "at our election," because court finds arbitration clause ambiguous since "our" could refer to investors, broker, or both. McNeer v Thomson McKinnon Secur., Inc. (1990, DC Kan) 729 F Supp 1306.
   Aluminum seller is entitled to stay of buyer's counterclaim on contract pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, where broad arbitration clause was indisputably included in original contract for sale of aluminum, but buyer claims it was waived, novated or should not be enforced due to subsequent "contracts" which are now in dispute, because court is convinced dispute relates back to original contract containing enforceable arbitration clause. China Resource Prods. v Fayda Int'l (1990, DC Del) 747 F Supp 1101.
   Motion to compel arbitration is denied under 9 USCS § 3, where (1) original facsimile sent by construction company to contractor seeking repair of ring gear for tower crane did not include arbitration agreement, (2) contract formed at latest when contractor performed repairs on gear, and (3) arbitration clause on reverse side of invoice was mailed by contractor after return of repaired gear, because parties' agreement to repair ring gear did not contain enforceable arbitration provision. Manhattan Constr. Co. v Rotek, Inc. (1995, ND Okla) 905 F Supp 971.
Arbitration of employee's discrimination claims will not be compelled under 9 USCS § 3, where arbitration agreement authorizes arbitrator to award only breach-of-contract damages, because employee cannot be said to have agreed to arbitrate his claims under Title VII (42 USCS §§ 2000e et seq.) and ADEA (29 USCS §§ 621 et seq.), which authorize other damages. Alcaraz v Avnet, Inc. (1996, DC NM) 933 F Supp 1025, 71 BNA FEP Cas 68, 70 CCH EPD P 44618.
   Terminated franchisee's suit is stayed pending arbitration, even though last written dealership agreement between franchisee and car manufacturer extended only into 1994, where it included provisions continuing arbitration clause in effect as long as business relationship continued, with or without renewal of written dealership agreement, because arbitration clause specifically encompasses franchisee's claim that manufacturer did not have good cause to terminate franchise. Gaston Andrey of Framingham, Inc. v Ferrari of N. Am. (1997, DC Mass) 983 F Supp 18.

6. Conditions precedent distinguished
   At common law or in admiralty, failure of plaintiff to perform ordinary condition precedent, unless excused, is basis of plea in bar, but wide executory arbitration clauses are not dealt with in similar manner, and, while not making such agreement basis for plea in bar, it is made basis of a stay order. Kulukundis Shipping Co., S/A v Amtorg Trading Corp. (1942, CA2 NY) 126 F2d 978.
Arbitration agreement is not enforceable under 9 USCS § 3, where agreement is conditioned on granting of stay by court under § 3, because stay cannot be granted unless enforceable agreement exists. Combustion Eng'g, Inc. v Miller Hydro Group (1991, DC Me) 760 F Supp 9.

7. Specific performance distinguished
   There is well-defined distinction between "stay" and "specific performance"; stay merely arrests further action by court itself in suit until something outside suit occurs, but court does not order that it be done; while "specific performance," through exercise of discretionary equity powers, affirmatively orders that someone do, or refrain from doing, some act outside suit. Kulukundis Shipping Co., S/A v Amtorg Trading Corp. (1942, CA2 NY) 126 F2d 978.

8. Miscellaneous
   Policy of liberal joinder in maritime cases embodied in FRCP 14(c) does not supersede statutory right to enforce contractual arbitration guaranteed by Federal Arbitration Act; thus, court will not carve out exception to 9 USCS § 3 where, in admiralty cases, its enforcement would deny party ability to implead third party defendant pursuant to FRCP 14(c). Texaco Exploration & Prod. Co. v AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co. (2001, CA5 La) 243 F3d 906, 2001 AMC 1199, 48 FR Serv 3d 1258.
   Notwithstanding terms of 9 USCS § 3, dismissal is proper remedy when all of issues presented in lawsuit are arbitrable; thus, stay is not sole remedy available under statute. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc. (2001, CA4 Md) 252 F3d 707.
   Insurance company's action against insurance salesman is stayed pending arbitration pursuant to agreement providing for arbitration in Saudi Arabia, where (1) contract is within scope of Arbitration Act, (2) company's action is within scope of written contract, (3) salesman has not waived his right to arbitration, and (4) Saudi Arabia is not inconvenient forum although salesman has not proffered evidence that he could return to Saudi Arabia. Al-Salamah Arabian Agencies Co. v Reece (1987, MD NC) 673 F Supp 748.
Arbitration of bond purchasers claims against public utility bond underwriters and sellers is compelled, despite complexity of claims and inefficiency of requiring them to litigate identical claims in two forums, since purchasers signed agreements with arbitration provisions and underwriters and sellers have not waived their right to compel arbitration. Kronfeld v Advest, Inc. (1987, SD NY) 675 F Supp 1449, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 93573.
   Construction litigation is stayed pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, despite argument that arbitration provision is unenforceable for lack of mutuality since one party has sole option to employ it, because where agreement to arbitrate is integrated into larger unitary contract, consideration for contract as whole covers arbitration clause as well. W.L. Jorden & Co. v Blythe Industries, Inc. (1988, ND Ga) 702 F Supp 282.

II. REFERABILITY OF ISSUES

9. Generally
   Word "issue" in predecessor to 9 USCS § 3 was not used in same sense as when used with respect to pleadings, but it meant "claim" or that which one party demanded from other. Donahue v Susquehanna Collieries Co. (1943, CA3 Pa) 138 F2d 3, 7 CCH LC P 61758, 149 ALR 271.
   Where appellant filed action for interpretation of certain sections of contract and did not allege breach of same, trial court properly stayed proceedings where contract provided for arbitration in event of any disagreement. Hudson Lumber Co. v United States Plywood Corp. (1950, CA9 Cal) 181 F2d 929.
   Applicant for stay under 9 USCS § 3 is entitled to obtain it if he makes claim to arbitration which on its face is governed by applicable agreement, and court should grant stay unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of interpretation that covers asserted dispute; District Court was correct in referring to arbitrator question whether disputed services were included in contract where arbitration agreement provided that any controversy covering interpretation, application, or implementation of arbitration agreement should be submitted to arbitration panel. Seaboard C. L. R. Co. v National Rail Passenger Corp. (1977, CA5 Fla) 554 F2d 657.
   Involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against franchisee by company affiliated with franchisor did not invoke judicial process so as to waive franchisor's right to arbitration in proceedings against franchisee. Subway Equip. Leasing Corp. v Forte (1999, CA5 La) 169 F3d 324.
Arbitration Act's venue provision for confirming arbitration award places venue exclusively within district court in district within which arbitration award was made. Bill Harbert Constr. Co. v Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. (1999, CA11 Ala) 169 F3d 693, 12 FLW Fed C 565 (criticized in P & P Indus., Inc. v Sutter Corp. (1999, CA10 Okla) 179 F3d 861, 1999 Colo J C A R 3004).
   Where case raises important federal issues, courts refuse to grant stays of litigation pending arbitration, notwithstanding existence of arbitration clauses. Coar v Brown (1983, ND Ill) 29 BR 806, 8 CBC2d 1208.
   Court considering formation rather than enforcement of agreement to arbitrate may decide claim of lack of mutuality of obligation with respect to arbitration clause but where contract contains broad agreement to arbitrate controversies, claim that there was mutual cancellation of entire contract is one for arbitrators. Shotto v Laub (1986, DC Md) 632 F Supp 516.

10. Anti-trust claims
   Stay of antitrust claims pending arbitration should not be granted where antitrust claim is one alleging that agreement between parties was itself instrument of illegality. NPS Communications, Inc. v Continental Group, Inc. (1985, CA2 NY) 760 F2d 463, 1985-1 CCH Trade Cases P 66581.
Arbitration of antitrust claims of distributor against manufacturer and distributors of manufacture's products is not stayed, where plaintiff distributor entered agreement whereby it was appointed nonexclusive authorized distributor of manufacturer's products, because antitrust claims fell within arbitration clause in distributor agreement, and because antitrust claims arising from domestic transactions are arbitrable. Syscomm Int'l Corp. v Synoptics Communications (1994, ED NY) 856 F Supp 135, 1995-1 CCH Trade Cases P 70923.

11. Bankruptcy matters
   Bankruptcy trustee is not compelled to arbitrate partnership claims, even though there was arbitration clause in partnership agreement, since trustee is different legal entity from debtor and since trustee asserts several causes of action belonging to him as trustee for benefit of creditors. Coar v Brown (1983, ND Ill) 29 BR 806, 8 CBC2d 1208.
   Bankruptcy proceeding, ancillary to foreign bankruptcy, will be stayed under 9 USCS § 3 pending arbitration in London of contract dispute pursuant to written contract, where there is no public interest evident in simple dispute over contract construction, no evidence that judicial forum has special expertise compared to arbiters to construe contract, and agreement to arbitration was freely made by parties. Clover Trading Co. v M. Golodetz & Co. (1984, SD NY) CCH Bankr L Rptr P 70066.

12. Commodity futures trading
   There is no implied repeal in either ADEA or Title VII of Civil Rights Act of FAA's provisions requiring enforcement of agreement to arbitrate employment disputes. Seus v John Nuveen & Co. (1998, CA3 Pa) 146 F3d 175, 77 BNA FEP Cas 751, 73 CCH EPD P 45394, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 90225.
   FAA does not apply to labor or employment contracts. Craft v Campbell Soup Co. (1998, CA9 Cal) 161 F3d 1199, 98 CDOS 8794, 98 Daily Journal DAR 12217, 78 BNA FEP Cas 713, 159 BNA LRRM 2961, 137 CCH LC P 10321 (criticized in Koveleskie v SBC Capital Mkts., Inc. (1999, CA7 Ill) 79 BNA FEP Cas 73).
   Claims by terminated employees asserted under ERISA, 29 USCS §§ 1001-1461, involving proper valuation of stock held in their former employer's profit sharing plan are claims "arising out of" their employment and termination and are therefore arbitrable. Williams v Imhoff (2000, CA10 Colo) 203 F3d 758, 24 EBC 2183, 2000 Colo J C A R 799.
   Signatories of employment contract who were not members of NASD were not entitled to invoke its NASD-referenced arbitration clause against employees. Paul Revere Variable Annuity Ins. Co. v Kirschhofer (2000, CA1 Mass) 226 F3d 15.
   District Court erred in denying employer's motion to compel arbitration of employee's suit alleging he was unlawfully terminated because of his age and race where employee's selling activities were regulated by NASD, he signed agreement to arbitrate any dispute between himself and employer, and where he indicated he intended to join NASD, and understood NASD Code, one rule of which required arbitration for termination. Haskins v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. (2000, CA6 Ohio) 230 F3d 231, 2000 FED App 283P, 79 CCH EPD P 40326, 83 FEP Case 1329.
   Stay of proceedings, which would have effect of enjoining Commodity Futures Trading Commission from proceeding to process customer's complaint under 7 USCS § 18, is neither permitted by 9 USCS § 3, nor required as matter of equity, absent some showing that brokerage firm will suffer irreparable injury if called upon to defend reparations action. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. v French (1977, DC Dist Col) 425 F Supp 1231.
9 USCS § 3 applies to contracts evidencing transactions involving commerce, pursuant to 9 USCS § 2, and contract relating to commodities futures is one involving commerce and therefore 9 USCS § 3 on its face applies. Romnes v Bache & Co. (1977, WD Wis) 439 F Supp 833.
   Stay of action and counterclaim arising from liquidation of commodity account is properly ordered where commodity account agreement provisions governing arbitration provides for coverage of "transactions" relating to "account". Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. v Richal Shipping Corp. (1984, SD NY) 581 F Supp 933.
   Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted under 9 USCS §§ 2-4, where chocolate company makes RICO and Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) (7 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) claims against commodities trading firms it contracted with to procure cocoa products, because (1) contract references and parties' memberships in cocoa trade association and exchange made valid arbitration agreement between them, (2) instant dispute falls within scope of arbitration agreement since it involves price to be paid for cocoa products under contract, and (3) strong federal policy favors arbitration of RICO, CEA and common law claims. Cook Chocolate Co., Div. of World's Finest Chocolate, Inc. v Salomon, Inc. (1988, SD NY) 684 F Supp 1177.
   In action alleging violations of Commodity Exchange Act (7 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) and asserting common law claims based on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence arising from commodities futures trading, court is not required to apply federal substantive law created under Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.), since Act does not pre-empt application of state law in cases in state courts involving arbitration agreement contained in interstate contracts. Thayer v American Financial Advisers, Inc. (1982, Minn) 322 NW2d 599.

13. Employee Retirement Income Security Act
Arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements other than in transportation industries are subject to FAA; moreover, collective bargaining agreement can compel employee to arbitrate claim he may have under federal statute such as Title VII of Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or Americans with Disabilities Act. Pryner v Tractor Supply Co. (1997, CA7 Ill) 109 F3d 354, 20 ADD 689, 73 BNA FEP Cas 615, 154 BNA LRRM 2806, 133 CCH LC P 11833.
   Prospective agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of termination of employment does not compel former employee to submit his claim under Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 USCS §§ 1001 et seq.) to arbitration rather than adjudication in federal courts. Lewis v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1977, ED Pa) 431 F Supp 271, 1 EBC 1737.
   Where strike settlement agreement continues arbitration provisions of collective bargaining agreement in effect, and where ERISA claim antedated strike and strike settlement agreement and does not involve collateral agreement, suit involving ERISA claim will be stayed pending arbitration. Kotoros v Geller (1983, SD NY) 99 CCH LC P 10568.
   Doctors' suit seeking injunction to force hospital to administer its self-insured major medical and dental employee welfare benefit plan in accordance with ERISA (29 USCS §§ 1001 et seq.) will not be stayed pending arbitration concerning hospital's collective bargaining agreement obligation to provide medical-dental insurance for its doctors, because there is no written agreement making ERISA claims arbitrable, and neither parties nor claims in 2 proceedings are same. Schwartz v Interfaith Medical Center (1989, ED NY) 715 F Supp 1190, 11 EBC 1338.

14. Employment contracts
   Trial court properly denied motion compelling arbitration, stay pending arbitration, and motion to enjoin brokerage firm from instituting litigation against former employee where there was no present litigation by firm, no present order to arbitrate, and no default to justify order; employee is entitled to declaratory judgment on issue of whether New York Stock Exchange Form U-4 is agreement to arbitrate. Downing v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1984, CA2 NY) 725 F2d 192.
   Despite securities employee's agreement to arbitrate any dispute which arose with her employer, she could not be required to participate in arbitration proceedings prior to judicial hearing on her federal civil rights claim. Utley v Goldman Sachs & Co. (1989, CA1 Mass) 883 F2d 184, 50 BNA FEP Cas 1087, 51 CCH EPD P 39267, cert den (1990) 493 US 1045, 107 L Ed 2d 836, 110 S Ct 842, 51 BNA FEP Cas 1896 and (criticized in Rosenberg v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1997, DC Mass) 1997 US Dist LEXIS 7031).
   Contract clause calling for arbitration of all disputes arising out of contract is broad enough to require arbitration of claim for destruction of business, including malice and intent. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v J.V.B. Industries, Inc. (1990, CA6 Ohio) 894 F2d 862.
   Federal Arbitration Act did not require arbitration of seniority dispute; Act is invoked only by written agreement between parties and it specifically excludes contracts of employment from coverage. Herring v Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1990, CA9 Cal) 894 F2d 1020, 133 BNA LRRM 2469, 114 CCH LC P 11890, cert den (1990) 494 US 1016, 108 L Ed 2d 495, 110 S Ct 1319, 133 BNA LRRM 2744 and (criticized in Pryner v Tractor Supply Co. (1997, CA7 Ill) 109 F3d 354, 20 ADD 689, 73 BNA FEP Cas 615, 154 BNA LRRM 2806).
   Agreement between employee and employer compelling arbitration of all claims arising out of employment is enforceable in suit for violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Gilmer v Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1990, CA4 NC) 895 F2d 195, 52 BNA FEP Cas 26, 52 CCH EPD P 39601, reh den, en banc (1990, CA4) 1990 US App LEXIS 7370 and affd (1991) 500 US 20, 114 L Ed 2d 26, 111 S Ct 1647, 91 CDOS 3498, 91 Daily Journal DAR 5501, 55 BNA FEP Cas 1116, 56 CCH EPD P 40704.
Arbitration clause in brokerage registration agreement between employee of brokerage firm and New York stock exchange requires arbitration of employee's Title VII discrimination claim against brokerage firm. Alford v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1992, CA5 Tex) 975 F2d 1161, 60 BNA FEP Cas 292, 60 CCH EPD P 41874.
   District court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration of complaint alleging ongoing breaches of fiduciary duty and contract, theft and misappropriation, and copyright and securities violations, all arising from departure of numerous members of existing securities firm to start up their own securities firm; complaint plainly arises "in connection with the business" and is therefore arbitrable under National Association of Securities Dealers Code. Jackson v Domtar Indus. (1994, CA2 Vt) 35 F3d 89.
   Defendant, nondefaulting party, made application for stay of proceedings until arbitration had been had, and since issue involved was referable to arbitration under wage agreements referred to in pleadings, action was stayed. Evans v Hudson Coal Co. (1947, DC Pa) 71 F Supp 152, 12 CCH LC P 63714, affd (1948, CA3 Pa) 165 F2d 970, 14 CCH LC P 64318.
   Federal law governs all questions regarding interpretation, validity and enforceability of arbitration agreement, and issues concerning validity and enforceability of asserted arbitration agreement, included in contract of employment, properly are determined upon motion to stay pursuant to 9 USCS § 3. Fox v Merrill Lynch & Co. (1978, SD NY) 453 F Supp 561, 1 EBC 1976.
   Breach of noncompetition contract action by brokerage firm against former employee is properly stayed pending arbitration under stock exchange rules where contract allows either party to seek arbitration. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v De Liniere (1983, ND Ga) 572 F Supp 246.
   Dispute between employer and former employees concerning employees' use of employer's confidential information to solicit customers is arbitrable under employment contract, even though alleged solicitation took place after employees resigned, since matter arises from employment. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Thomson (1983, ED Mo) 574 F Supp 1472.
   New York Stock Exchange Form U-4 requiring representatives and member firms to comply with Exchange arbitration rules constitutes agreement between broker and employee to arbitrate, even though dispute arose after termination of employment. Smith v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1983, ND Tex) 575 F Supp 904.
   Brokerage firm and employees who signed New York Stock Exchange Form U-4 requiring representatives and member firms to comply with Exchange arbitration rules are required to arbitrate dispute arising out of employment. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Thompson (1983, ND Fla) 575 F Supp 978.
   Action on brokerage firm's petition for injunction against further violations of training agreement by former employee is stayed pending arbitration under New York Stock Exchange rules. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v De Caro (1983, WD Mo) 577 F Supp 616.
   Federal court will enforce arbitration agreement in employment contract requiring arbitration of discharge, but will not stay state court proceedings brought by employer based on claims pertaining to employee's conduct during training and alleged violations of training agreement where escrow account and arbitration order adequately protect employee from whatever financial hardship she may suffer as result of state court proceeding. Roodveldt v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1984, ED Pa) 585 F Supp 770.
   Claims of defamation that turn on whether plaintiff was terminated with or without cause, which issue involves interpretation of contractual relationship between parties, is encompassed in agreement to arbitrate any dispute calling into question validity of plaintiff's termination and will be referred to arbitration; mere fact that allegedly defamatory statements were made after plaintiff's termination does not compel different conclusion because temporal aspect is inevitable consequence of company's reporting on event which terminates employment agreement; statement by president of defendant to another employee, made one week prior to plaintiff's determination that plaintiff was alcoholic is not encompassed in arbitration clause because resolution of defamation claim does not require reference to underlying contract; such claim therefore does not require arbitration and District Court need not refuse to deny arbitration of other claims because nonarbitral claim arising from same transaction is factually intertwined. McMahon v RMS Electronics, Inc. (1985, SD NY) 618 F Supp 189.
   Stay pending arbitration is granted to brokerage house in action by former employee seeking to avoid arbitration of reimbursement fee claimed by broker, where evidence showed employee executed agreement to arbitrate, and rules and constitution of New York Stock Exchange provided for arbitration, because, after judicial determination of validity of arbitration provision, order staying proceedings and directing arbitration was mandatory. Malison v Prudential-Bache Secur., Inc. (1987, WD NC) 654 F Supp 101.
   Former employer's motion to compel arbitration under 9 USCS §§ 3, 4 is granted in former employee's defamation suit against employer, where defamatory statement was made after termination on the termination form, since alleged defamatory statement pertained to employment relationship between the parties. Feinberg v Oppenheimer & Co. (1987, SD NY) 658 F Supp 892.
   Fee dispute between construction consultant and hotel company will be referred to arbitration pursuant to 9 USCS § 3, even though dispute resolution clause merely states that parties "agree to meet promptly to negotiate, mediate, or arbitrate any claim," where company has done nothing to waive its right to arbitration, because, although consultant was not precluded from filing suit, when company requested arbitration strong policy favoring arbitration required court to stay proceedings. Howard Fields & Assocs. v Grand Wailea Co. (1993, DC Hawaii) 848 F Supp 890.
   Former corporate executives' claims for severance benefits are stayed pending arbitration, where executives worked under employment agreement containing arbitration provision but also subject to subsequent "change of control" agreement containing no arbitration clause, because latter agreement did nothing to supersede arbitration clause in basic employment contract, which will be enforced. Hinson v Jusco Co. (1994, DC SC) 868 F Supp 145, 10 BNA IER Cas 112.
Arbitration is compelled under 9 USCS § 3, where young African-American male employees assert sexual harassment claims under Title VII (42 USCS §§ 2000e et seq.), but employees' signatures appear on "Principles of Employment" which expressly and unambiguously obligate them to arbitrate employment disputes, even though they both allege they signed documents at orientation meetings which were "intimidating, hurried, and tense" and did not even know meaning of word "arbitration" until they consulted with their attorneys, because argument that they did not have time to read agreement before signing must fail due to strong federal policy favoring arbitration. Maye v Smith Barney Inc. (1995, SD NY) 897 F Supp 100, 68 BNA FEP Cas 1648, app den (1995, SD NY) 903 F Supp 570, 67 CCH EPD P 43825.
   Action is stayed while parties proceed to arbitration in accordance with "International Sales Representative Agreement," where Spanish broker claims commissions for Spanish customers forwarded to U.S. airplane manufacturer, because agreement contains broad arbitration provision covering "any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or in connection with" Agreement. Trading Places Aeronautica, S.L. v Raytheon Aircraft Corp. (1999, DC Kan) 35 F Supp 2d 1308.
   Under 9 USCS § 3, employment agreement provision requiring employee to arbitrate all disputes was enforceable with regard to employee's claims of discrimination and wrongful termination, despite provision permitting employer to go to court to commence litigation with regard to any breach of confidentiality agreement, where agreement required employer to submit to binding arbitration all claims arising out of employee's termination or relating to alleged discrimination by employer. Quinn v EMC Corp. (2000, SD Tex) 109 F Supp 2d 681, 83 BNA FEP Cas 1089, 6 BNA WH Cas 2d 633.
   Case of female automotive service technician is dismissed without prejudice to renewal to enforce terms of arbitration award, where employer has moved to compel arbitration under employee dispute resolution (EDR) plan, because her claims of gender discrimination, deprivation of civil rights, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, tortious interference, and negligent supervision all fall within broad provisions of EDR plan. Bolduc v Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (2000, DC Conn) 116 F Supp 2d 322, 84 BNA FEP Cas 139.

15. --Collective bargaining agreements
   Where plaintiff employer and defendant labor union entered into contract, which prohibited strikes and lock outs, and provided for "grievance procedure" and arbitration relative to disputes over wages, hours, and conditions of employment, and thereafter plaintiff sued defendant for damages on account of strike and secondary boycott, defendant was not entitled to stay of proceedings pending arbitration, since agreement for arbitration did not apply to strikes and lock outs. International Union United Furniture Workers v Colonial Hardwood Flooring Co. (1948, CA4 Md) 168 F2d 33, 22 BNA LRRM 2102, 14 CCH LC P 64517.
9 USCS § 3 is applicable to collective bargaining agreement between employer engaged in manufacture of goods for sale in interstate commerce and its employee. Tenney Eng'g v United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers (1953, CA3 NJ) 207 F2d 450, 24 CCH LC P 67878 (criticized in Caldwell v KFC Corp. (1997, DC NJ) 958 F Supp 962).
   Union was entitled to stay of proceedings pending arbitration in employer's action for damages resulting from violation of no-strike clause in collective bargaining agreement. Signal--Stat Corp. v United Electrical, etc. (1956, CA2 NY) 235 F2d 298, 38 BNA LRRM 2378, 30 CCH LC P 70090, cert den (1957) 354 US 911, 1 L Ed 2d 1428, 77 S Ct 1293, 40 BNA LRRM 2200, reh den (1957) 355 US 852, 2 L Ed 2d 61, 78 S Ct 7.
9 USCS § 3 has no application in employer's suit against union for breach of no-strike clause in collective bargaining contract which contains binding agreement not to strike, with no provision as to arbitration of claim by employer against union. International Union, United Auto. Aircraft, etc. v Benton Harbor Malleable Industries (1957, CA6 Mich) 242 F2d 536, 39 BNA LRRM 2689, 32 CCH LC P 70590, cert den (1957) 355 US 814, 2 L Ed 2d 31, 78 S Ct 15, 40 BNA LRRM 2680.
   Order to stay action by appellant against local union, bargaining agent of its employees, for damages caused by striking and picketing allegedly in violation of collective bargaining agreement, pending arbitration of issues in suit, is within judicial power. Mason--Dixon Lines, Inc. v International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (1971, CA3 NJ) 443 F2d 807, 77 BNA LRRM 2454, 65 CCH LC P 11776.
   Court improperly resolved dispute between successor employer and employees rather than referring dispute to arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, where dispute between successor employer and employees was not identical to earlier dispute resolved by prior arbitration award, court overlooked strong federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes, and court improperly applied successorship doctrine under 29 USCS § 185(a) to situation involving successor which had expressly assumed collective bargaining agreement between predecessor and employees and broad arbitration clause contained therein. Shaffer v Mitchell Transport, Inc. (1980, CA3 Pa) 635 F2d 261, 106 BNA LRRM 2107, 90 CCH LC P 12492.
   Where parties to contract providing for arbitration have arbitrable dispute, Congress has mandated that federal courts defer to contractual arbitration; where arbitration is only step, union refuses to take matter to arbitration, union's alleged breach is better cast as failure to investigate or respond to proper request for assistance in arbitration, and where plaintiff has filed formal demand for arbitration, District Court is compelled to issue stay order providing applicant for stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration and where litigant has not been advantaged by delay. Santos v American Broadcasting Co. (1989, CA6 Mich) 866 F2d 892, 130 BNA LRRM 2515, 110 CCH LC P 10935.
   In labor law context, standards of Federal Arbitration Act are superseded by LMRA (29 USCS §§ 141 et seq). Martin v Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (1990, CA7 Ind) 911 F2d 1239, 135 BNA LRRM 2217, 116 CCH LC P 10234.
   Where arbitration provision, by which employees purport to waive their right to federal forum with respect to statutory claims such as discrimination, is contained in union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement, provision is not enforceable. Rogers v New York Univ. (2000, CA2 NY) 220 F3d 73, 164 BNA LRRM 2854, 6 BNA WH Cas 2d 379, 141 CCH LC P 10768.
   Where contract between maritime union and respondent provides that no time off pay will be granted if seaman leaves ship without being properly relieved, and respondent in answer alleges that seaman left ship without being properly relieved, issue as to right to recover time-off pay is one "referable to arbitration." Jones v Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. (1951, DC Pa) 98 F Supp 787.
   In suit by employer against union for alleged breach of collective bargaining contract, union is not entitled to stay of proceedings based on arbitration clause, since 9 USCS §§ 1 et seq. does not apply to collective bargaining contracts. Boston & Maine Transp. Co. v Amalgamated Asso. etc. (1952, DC Mass) 106 F Supp 334, 22 CCH LC P 67069.
   Collective bargaining agreement between employer and union providing for arbitration does not render subject thereto action by employer against union for damages for strike called by union in violation of agreement. Harris Hub Bed & Spring Co. v United Electrical, etc. (1954, DC Pa) 121 F Supp 40, 34 BNA LRRM 2172, 25 CCH LC P 68391.
Arbitration provision in collective bargaining agreement between employer and union is not subject to 9 USCS §§ 1 et seq., notwithstanding contention of union that agreement is not contract of employment. Miller Metal Products, Inc. v United Electrical, etc., Workers (1954, DC Md) 121 F Supp 731, 26 CCH LC P 68458, affd (1954, CA4 Md) 215 F2d 221, 34 BNA LRRM 2731, 26 CCH LC P 68636 (criticized in Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v Bates (1995, CA6 Ky) 71 F3d 592, 11 BNA IER Cas 361, 1995 FED App 360P) and (criticized in Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v Central Cartage Co. (1996, CA7 Ill) 84 F3d 988, 20 EBC 1297) and (criticized in Cole v Burns Int'l Sec. Servs. (1997, App DC) 105 F3d 1465, 72 BNA FEP Cas 1775, 70 CCH EPD P 44572) and (criticized in Pryner v Tractor Supply Co. (1997, CA7 Ill) 109 F3d 354, 20 ADD 689, 73 BNA FEP Cas 615, 154 BNA LRRM 2806) and (criticized in Patterson v Tenet Healthcare (1997, CA8 Mo) 113 F3d 832, 73 BNA FEP Cas 1822, 12 BNA IER Cas 1434, 70 CCH EPD P 44677) and (criticized in O'Neil v Hilton Head Hosp. (1997, CA4 SC) 12 BNA IER Cas 1579, 3 BNA WH Cas 2d 1697).
   Employment contract between teacher and parochial school containing collective bargaining agreement providing for arbitration of dispute is not maritime contract or transaction involving commerce within scope of Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USCS §§ 1 et seq., so as to justify removal of action to federal court for enforcement under 9 USCS § 3. Ferro v Association of Catholic Schools (1985, SD NY) 623 F Supp 1161, 122 BNA LRRM 2068, 107 CCH LC P 10045.
   Sexual harassment and retaliation claims of former employee need not be dismissed or arbitrated pursuant to 9 USCS § 3, even though she has not exhausted grievance and arbitration procedures under applicable collective bargaining agreement, because agreement does not contain clear and unmistakable waiver of her right to judicial forum for state and federal statutory claims. Prince v Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1999, SD NY) 37 F Supp 2d 289, 160 BNA LRRM 2740.

16. Fair Labor Standards Act
   In action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS §§ 201 et seq.), motion for stay was properly overruled pursuant to exception relative to contracts of employment of workers engaged in interstate commerce. Gatliff Coal Co. v Cox (1944, CA6 Ky) 142 F2d 876, 14 BNA LRRM 782, 8 CCH LC P 62199.
   Action to recover for alleged unpaid overtime work pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS §§ 201 et seq.) was stayed pending arbitration as provided by employment contract. Donahue v Susquehanna Collieries Co. (1947, CA3 Pa) 160 F2d 661, 12 CCH LC P 63700.
   Questions of days and hours on which claimant worked and calculation of amount of money to which he was entitled under Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS §§ 201 et seq.) were properly referable to arbitrator, and reference was appropriate under contract provision for reference despite its inadequacy and illegality in light of Fair Labor Standards Act. Evans v Hudson Coal Co. (1948, CA3 Pa) 165 F2d 970, 14 CCH LC P 64318.
   Employer is not entitled to stay pursuant to § 3 of Arbitration Act (9 USCS § 3) where claim under Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS §§ 201 et seq.) is not arbitrable. Leyva v Certified Grocers of California, Ltd. (1979, CA9 Cal) 593 F2d 857, 101 BNA LRRM 2101, 24 BNA WH Cas 87, 86 CCH LC P 33771, cert den (1979) 444 US 827, 62 L Ed 2d 34, 100 S Ct 51, 102 BNA LRRM 2360, 24 BNA WH Cas 306.
   Equal pay action under 29 USCS § 206(d) is stayed pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, notwithstanding argument that Congress intended to preclude arbitration of such claims; arbitral tribunals are recognized as capable of handling even complicated claims. Steele v L.F. Rothschild & Co. (1988, SD NY) 701 F Supp 407, 48 BNA FEP Cas 945, 29 BNA WH Cas 258, app dismd (1988, CA2 NY) 864 F2d 1, 48 BNA FEP Cas 945, 29 BNA WH Cas 259, 48 CCH EPD P 38542, 110 CCH LC P 35150.
   Fired lot attendant for Jaguar dealership must arbitrate his workers' compensation claim, but may proceed with Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS §§ 201 et seq.) claim in federal District Court, where his compliance with requirement that he sign dealership's arbitration policy in order to be hired is enforceable mutual agreement, because state claim must be stayed pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3 but 29 USCS § 216 grants individual employees broad access to courts which cannot be waived. Louis v Geneva Enters. (2000, ED Va) 128 F Supp 2d 912, 6 BNA WH Cas 2d 1289, 142 CCH LC P 34203.

17. Franchises
   Stay of proceedings pending arbitration under § 3 is proper in action by franchisees against franchiser on various contract and tort claims arising from franchise agreement notwithstanding unconscionability claim based upon statute, otherwise arising within scope of agreement's arbitration clause, where state law merely provides plaintiffs with parallel remedy. Ommani v Doctor's Associates, Inc. (1986, CA5 Tex) 789 F2d 298.
   In class action lawsuit against international fast food franchisors, defendants are entitled to stay of claims of only those subfranchisees operating under subfranchise agreements containing language mandating arbitration of "any dispute arising between parties" where agreements referenced franchisors numerous times, even though agreement was between subfranchisee and franchisee also known as "territory operator," because franchisor is clearly prominent in subfranchise relationship and entitled to invoke arbitration clause in light of federal policy favoring arbitration. Collins v International Dairy Queen (1998, MD Ga) 2 F Supp 2d 1465, 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases P 72118, motion den, motion to strike den, stay gr (1998, MD Ga) 2 F Supp 2d 1473, 1998-2 CCH Trade Cases P 72266.

18. Fraud
   Marine insurance contract case is stayed pending arbitration in London under 9 USCS § 3, where Alaska fisherman freely became member of insurance association by insuring his fishing vessel, because fact that fisherman or his broker did not fully investigate terms applicable to association members--including London arbitration clause--does not make insurance contract unconscionable, and arbitration must be compelled. Organ v Conner (1992, DC Alaska) 792 F Supp 693, 1992 AMC 2160.
   Reinsureds' action against reinsurer under reinsurance treaties is stayed pending arbitration, where prior arbitration award involved treaties nearly identical to ones involved in present case except for different coverage periods, because arbitrators should decide preclusive effect of prior award, and because collateral estoppel effect should not be accorded prior arbitration since facts and timing did not precisely correspond to present case. North River Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co. (1994, SD NY) 866 F Supp 123.
   Workers' compensation carrier is entitled to stay pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, even though insured contends that (1) carrier breached its fiduciary and good-faith duties, (2) insured is not obligated to pay retrospective premium of $ 118,101, and (3) bad-faith claim does not fall under purview of arbitration clause contained in premium agreement but rather under insurance policy which contains no such clause, because claim does relate to "transaction involved" in premium agreement since insured is disputing premium assessed under that agreement. Svedala Indus. v Home Ins. Co. (1995, ED Wis) 921 F Supp 576.

19. Insurance contracts
   Upon application under § 3 of Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCS § 3) for stay of federal diversity action for rescission, because of fraudulent inducement, claim of fraud in inducement of entire contract is to be resolved by arbitration rather than by court, regardless of state law, where (1) there is no evidence that contracting parties intended to withhold such issue from arbitration, (2) arbitration clause is broad enough to include claim of fraud in inducement of contract generally, and (3) there is no claim of fraudulent inducement to enter into arbitration agreement itself. Prima Paint Corp. v Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. (1967) 388 US 395, 18 L Ed 2d 1270, 87 S Ct 1801 (criticized in Aviall, Inc. v Ryder Sys. (1996, SD NY) 913 F Supp 826).
   Fraud in procuring contract between basketball player and club is proper issue for arbitration and injunctive relief maintaining status quo pending arbitration. Erving v Virginia Squires Basketball Club (1972, CA2 NY) 468 F2d 1064.
   Where complaint alleges fraud in procurement of agreement and arbitration clause in agreement, District Court must adjudicate validity of arbitration clause and then determine whether court or arbitrator should decide validity of agreement. C.B.S. Employees Federal Credit Union v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp. (1990, CA6 Tenn) 912 F2d 1563, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 95460.
   In dispute arising out of contract in which plaintiff, as guarantor, executed guaranty agreement with defendant and then later claimed that he was fraudulently induced to sign such agreement (which contained provision for arbitration), where controlling issue is whether Court should resolve question of fraud in inducement or whether question is one for arbitration, defendant's motion to stay action pending arbitration is properly granted; this is matter wholly committed to arbitral resolution, and nothing that any court might intimate in considering likelihood of proving fraud should in any way influence arbitrators' judgment, for it is their judgment, according to arbitration clause in guaranty agreement, which parties bargained for. Griffin v Semperit of America, Inc. (1976, SD Tex) 414 F Supp 1384.
   In action to enforce arbitration award, which action arose under United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (9 USCS §§ 201 et seq.) Biotronik Mess-und Therapiegeraete GmbH & Co. v Medford Medical Instrument Co. (1976, DC NJ) 415 F Supp 133.
   It is well settled that general attack on contract on ground of fraud in inducement is severable claim which is referable to arbitration and is claim which should not be considered by federal court; only claim of fraud in inducement which is addressed to arbitration provision per se should be adjudicated by court rather than by arbitrator, because federal court, in passing upon application for stay under 9 USCS § 3 may consider only its use relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate. Coleman v National Movie-Dine, Inc. (1978, ED Pa) 449 F Supp 945.
   Stay of trial action in favor of arbitration was granted where purchaser of distributorship for nonexistent corporation elected to affirm contract containing arbitration clause and sue for fraud in the inducement rather than seek rescission. Todd Distributing, Inc. v Strouthopolos (1989, DC RI) 124 FRD 29.
   Contract dispute is stayed pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, notwithstanding plaintiff's claim of fraud in inducement of arbitration clause, where plaintiff alleges defendant fraudulently induced it to enter contract by falsely describing its ability to build satellite to meet plaintiff's requirements and attempted to protect itself from liability for this fraud by including arbitration clause and choice-of-law provision in contract without negotiation, because plaintiff's allegations only state with requisite FRCP 9(b) particularity claim for fraud in inducement of whole contract, which claim is properly referred to arbitration pursuant to § 3. Echostar Satellite Corp. v General Electric Co. (1992, DC Colo) 797 F Supp 855.

20. Miller Act
   In action under Miller Act (40 USCS §§ 270a-270d) by subcontractor against contractor and surety on latter's bond to recover for labor and materials furnished in construction of government building, motion by defendants to stay proceedings until arbitration can be had pursuant to terms of contract between parties should be granted. Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corp. v United States (1944, CA4 Va) 142 F2d 854, 8 CCH LC P 62203.
   Subcontractor who demands arbitration of dispute with primary contractor in accordance with terms of contract between them does not thereby relinquish his right to bring suit under Miller Act (40 USCS § 270a et seq.) for payment of his claim by surety; nor is subcontractor required to await outcome of arbitration proceedings before instituting suit under Miller Act. United States on behalf of Portland Constr. Co. v Weiss Pollution Control Corp. (1976, CA5 Fla) 532 F2d 1009, 22 CCF P 80465.

21. Patent infringement
   On plaintiff's motion to stay arbitration and defendant's motion to dismiss complaint or in alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of dispute involving patent infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract, where court is satisfied that issues involving computation of royalties and termination of agreement which delineates respective rights of parties to prosecute patents for "know-how" and for machines developed by plaintiff are referable to arbitration under clause in such agreement, 9 USCS § 3 requires that trial of action be stayed; furthermore, submission of controversy to arbitration will not contravene patent laws, or any other law or policy. Levin v Ripple Twist Mills, Inc. (1976, ED Pa) 416 F Supp 876, 191 USPQ 38, dismd without op (1977, CA3 Pa) 549 F2d 795.

22. Securities transactions
   Clause contained in international sales contract, that any controversy or claim arising out of contract or breach thereof will be referred to arbitration before International Chamber of Commerce of Paris, France, is to be respected and enforced by federal courts in accord with provisions of Arbitration Act of 1925 (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) in purchaser's action against seller for damages and other relief, where (1) purchaser is American corporation with its principal place of business and vast bulk of its activity in United States, while seller is citizen of Germany, (2) negotiations leading to signing of contract in Austria and closing in Switzerland took place in United States, England, and Germany, and involved consultations with legal and trademark experts from each of those countries and from Liechtenstein, and (3) most significantly, subject matter of contract concerns sale of business enterprises organized under laws of Germany and Liechtenstein and primarily situated in European countries, and whose activities are largely, if not entirely, directed to European markets; such contract is applicable although purchaser in its complaint alleges that seller's fraudulent representations concerning status of trademark rights connected with sold enterprises constitute violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USCS § 78j) and Rule 10b-5 (17 CFR § 240.10b-5) promulgated thereunder. Scherk v Alberto-Culver Co. (1974) 417 US 506, 41 L Ed 2d 270, 94 S Ct 2449, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 94593, reh den (1974) 419 US 885, 42 L Ed 2d 129, 95 S Ct 157.
   Trial court erred in denying stay of trial of arbitrable issues intertwined with securities fraud action, where issues could be severed, notwithstanding that severance will require duplication of proofs. Liskey v Oppenheimer & Co. (1983, CA6 Mich) 717 F2d 314, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 99507.
   Claims arising under § 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 are arbitrable. Phillips v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1986, CA8 Minn) 795 F2d 1393, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 92815, cert den (1987) 482 US 931, 96 L Ed 2d 705, 107 S Ct 3218.
   District court properly referred to arbitration plaintiff's claims arising under state securities laws and common law fraud, as demanded by defendants pursuant to franchise agreement providing for arbitration of any dispute concerning formation, interpretation, and performance of agreement, notwithstanding allegations of fraud since even claim of fraud in inducement of entire contract containing valid arbitration clause could be referred to arbitration pursuant to 9 USCS § 3. Meyer v Dans un Jardin, S.A. (1987, CA10 Okla) 816 F2d 533, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 93233.
   Provision of agreement that provides that any dispute shall be resolved by arbitration with exception for when "arbitrators determine that third party is necessary party" offers clear and unmistakable evidence that parties agreed to arbitration whether condition that triggers exception to arbitration applies. Telectronics Pacing Sys. v Guidant Corp. (1998, CA8 Minn) 143 F3d 428.
   Action brought by plaintiff customer against defendant securities and commodities broker is properly stayed upon motion of defendant, and claims of plaintiff referred to arbitration, where controversy is arbitrable under terms of customer margin and lending agreement between parties, and agreement is within scope of 9 USCS §§ 1 et seq. which provides that arbitration agreements within its scope should be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable. Robinson v Bache & Co. (1964, SD NY) 227 F Supp 456.
   Limited partnership agreement providing for arbitration of all issues between partners is enforceable, and court in securities case must stay all proceedings pending arbitration unless claims are founded on issues not referable to arbitration; limited partners are not required to arbitrate securities fraud claim despite 15 USCS § 78bb since part of exchange arbitration rule contains provision that arbitration does not constitute prospective waiver of rights arising under federal securities laws. Wilcox v Ho-Wing Sit (1984, ND Cal) 586 F Supp 561, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 91510.
   Federal claims based upon implied rights of action founded in Securities and Exchange Act are arbitrable. Land v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1985, ED Va) 617 F Supp 52, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 92369.
   Notwithstanding provision in contract that parties do not waive rights they may have under federal securities law, suit in federal court will be stayed, and arbitration will be compelled where contract also provides for settlement by arbitration. Dees v Distenfield (1985, CD Cal) 618 F Supp 123.
   Investor's 15 USCS § 78j action regarding handling of stock trading account will not be stayed pending arbitration where arbitration agreements involving 15 USCS § 78j are void, as they seek to waive jurisdictional provisions of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Coffey v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1986, DC Colo) 640 F Supp 874.
   Stay of securities action will not be vacated under Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCS § 3), where issues before court are properly arbitrable, since to vacate stay would require parties to engage in duplicative and costly exercise, and simultaneous proceedings could lead to inconsistent results. Terra Resources I v Burgin (1987, SD NY) 674 F Supp 1072, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 93558.
Arbitration is compelled under 9 USCS § 3 of customer's claims against member of American stock exchange (AMEX), where transactions and claims in question fall under ambit of AMEX constitution which provides for arbitration of such controversies, since member of AMEX has not waived right to arbitration and customer's claim that various issues are not arbitrable are conclusory statements with no basis in fact and no showing of prejudice. Interstate Sec. Corp. v Siegel (1988, SD NY) 676 F Supp 54.
   Agreement to arbitrate in brokerage contract is not invalidated by state statute rendering arbitration agreement void where Arbitration Act preempts state rules of law to contrary. Russolillo v Thomson McKinnon Secur., Inc. (1988, DC Conn) 694 F Supp 1042.
   Investor's claims under Securities Act of 1933 are not arbitrable, but claims under Security Exchange Act of 1934 are arbitrable, and National Association of Securities Dealers is not biased as arbitration agency in securities litigation between investor and brokerage firm resulting from stock market crash of October 1987, because (1) Supreme Court's recent decision on securities arbitration did not overrule prohibition on waiving right to judicial forum in 1933 Act claims, (2) parties' agreements to arbitrate encompassed 1934 Act claims, and (3) investor was unable to show bias of individual arbitrators. Pompano-Windy City Partners, Ltd, v Bear, Stearns & Co. (1988, SD NY) 698 F Supp 504, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 94133.
   All of investors' claims against brokerage firm and broker are referable to arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, despite argument that claims arising from conduct occurring before 1982 are not subject to arbitration under 1982 agreement, because this contention addresses scope of arbitration clause and is issue for arbitrators. Trott v Paciolla (1990, ED Pa) 748 F Supp 305, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 95800.
   Parties are directed to arbitrate securities fraud claims, where plaintiff was sophisticated investor, was authorized agent to execute securities transactions for his account, and is assumed to be familiar with securities industry practice of requiring arbitration clauses, because these disputes certainly fall within broad customer agreement arbitration clause covering all controversies "concerning any transaction or construction, performance or breach of this or any other agreement between us pertaining to securities and other property." Scone Invs., L.P. v American Third Mkt. Corp. (1998, SD NY) 992 F Supp 378.
   All claims brought by investment products marketer against competitor are stayed for arbitration, where claims all arise from allegedly wrongful use, by former employees of plaintiff and current employees of defendant, of marketing documents, because all parties are subject to arbitration, since they are corporations associated with National Association of Securities Dealers members, and all claims are arbitrable since they arise out of or are connected with business of members. Essex Corp. v Independent Fin. Mktg. Group (1998, SD NY) 994 F Supp 532.

23. --Pendent state claims
   When complaint raises both federal securities claims and pendent state claims, Federal District Court may not deny motion to compel arbitration of state-law claims pursuant to agreement of parties, notwithstanding that result will be possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums. Dean Witter Reynolds v Byrd (1985) 470 US 213, 84 L Ed 2d 158, 105 S Ct 1238, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 91953.
   Fact that state fraud claims are based on state and federal securities transactions does not require that arbitration be stayed pending judicial resolution. Surman v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1984, CA8 Mo) 733 F2d 59, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 91443.
   Agreement to arbitrate claims arising under Securities Act of 1933 (15 USCS §§ 77a et seq.), or Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USCS §§ 78a et seq.), is invalid; doctrine of intertwining, which is judicially created exception to command of § 3 of Arbitration Act (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.), holds that when plaintiff asserts non-arbitrable federal securities law claims as well as arbitrable state law claims, and it is impractical if not impossible to separate 2 classes of claims, court, to preserve its exclusive jurisdiction over federal securities act claims, should deny defendant's motion to stay entire proceedings, or proceedings on state law claims, pending arbitration. Raiford v Buslease, Inc. (1984, CA11 Ga) 745 F2d 1419, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 91831.
   When complaint raises both federal securities claims and pendent state claims, Arbitration Act requires district courts to compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable claims where one party files motion to compel, even where result would be possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums. Greenblatt v Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (1985, CA11 Ga) 763 F2d 1352, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 92200.
Arbitration clause in second contract will be enforced as to subject matter of first contract, which contained no arbitration clause, applying arbitration clause to "any controversy or claim" relating to "any aspects of the relationship" between parties. Cara's Notions v Hallmark Cards (1998, CA4 NC) 140 F3d 566.
   In suit charging various state and federal securities laws violations, court will order arbitration as to state claims while staying federal claims pending resolution of arbitration. Webb v R. Rowland & Co. (1985, ED Mo) 613 F Supp 1123, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 92312, affd (1986, CA8 Mo) 800 F2d 803.
   Defendant brokerage firm on motion to compel under § 3 is entitled to arbitration of claims of violations arising under state and federal securities laws except those brought under 1933 Securities Act; where complaint raises federal securities claims and pendent state claim and motion to compel is made, federal court must compel arbitration of otherwise arbitrable claims. Moncrieff v Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1985, ED Mich) 623 F Supp 1005.
   Federal securities law claim will continue to be litigated in this court, but litigation of state securities law, misrepresentation, and breach of contract claims will be stayed under 9 USCS § 3 until arbitration of those claims is complete, where parties legitimately excluded from their arbitration agreement disputes arising under federal securities law, because investor is bound by agreement to arbitrate other claims even though she claims to have signed agreement after transferring her assets to broker and without knowing what she was signing. Kline v Henrie (1988, MD Pa) 679 F Supp 464, CCH Fed Secur L Rep P 93743.

24. Shipment of goods interstate
   Contract between buyer and seller calling for shipment of coal to another state involves "commerce" and where contract contains provision for arbitration, buyer is entitled to stay when seller brings action on contract in federal court. Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v Westchester Service Corp. (1934, CA2 NY) 70 F2d 297, affd (1935) 293 US 449, 79 L Ed 583, 55 S Ct 313 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 US 271, 99 L Ed 2d 296, 108 S Ct 1133).
   Dismissal with leave to reinstate is to be treated as stay and is not appealable final order as dismissal would be; thus, district court had jurisdiction over case when it came back to it after arbitration. Baltimore & O. Chicago Terminal R.R. v Wisconsin Cent. (1998, CA7 Ill) 154 F3d 404, reh, en banc, den (1998, CA7 Ill) 1998 US App LEXIS 27876.
   Plaintiff's claim for damages resulting from defendant pest control company's puncture of oil line on plaintiff's property related to agreement containing arbitration clause where damage occurred during treatment specified by agreement. Mehler v Terminix Int'l Co. L.P. (2000, CA2 Conn) 205 F3d 44.
   Contractually mandated appraisal is not equivalent of arbitration subject to FAA. Portland GE v United States Bank Trust N.A. (2000, CA9 Or) 218 F3d 1085, 2000 CDOS 5883, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 7819.
   Policy of liberal joinder in maritime cases embodied in FRCP Rule 14(c) does not supersede statutory right to enforce contractual arbitration guaranteed by Arbitration Act. Texaco Exploration & Prod. Co. v AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co. (2001, CA5 La) 243 F3d 906, 2001 AMC 1199, 48 FR Serv 3d 1258.

25. Subcontracts
   Where contract between contractor and subcontractor becomes subject to law suit in federal court and when contract clearly includes provision that all disputes arising under contract shall be disposed of by arbitration, court will grant stay of trial until controversy has been submitted to arbitration. Sterling Foundations, Inc. v Merritt--Chapman & Scott Corp. (1955, DC NY) 134 F Supp 327.
   Where subcontractor has contractually agreed to arbitrate all disputes between itself and general contractor, it is bound to arbitrate prior to bringing court action. United States use of Bay State York Co. v Seward Constr. Co. (1969, DC NH) 298 F Supp 1356.
   If subcontractor agrees to subcontract that by reference incorporates arbitration clause of general contract, defendant's motion to compel arbitration must be granted even though suit has already been started by subcontractor if court finds that suitable claims exist and that defendant has not waived its right to arbitrate them, slight delay being inadequate ground for waiver. Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v Docutel Corp. (1973, ED NY) 371 F Supp 240, 17 FR Serv 2d 337.
   Stay of breach of contract action between university and subcontractor is proper where prime contract is between United States and university and is related to national security. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. v Regents of University of Cal. (1982, ND Cal) 554 F Supp 495.
   Subcontractor's contribution claim against primary contractor was not referable to arbitration pursuant to 9 USCS § 3, where subcontractor alleged contractor failed to provide adequate fire protection system at plant, allegedly causing increased damages from fire allegedly caused by failure of fuel valve assembly on gas turbine generator installed by subcontractor, but claim did not arise out of nor was related to subcontract, and contractor's liability, if any, arose from its design and construction contract with plant owner, and contribution claim was unrelated to any performance or nonperformance under subcontract. Power City Partners, L.P. v ABB Power Generation (1996, ND NY) 910 F Supp 79.

26. Third-party disputes
9 USCS § 3 plainly requires District Court to stay litigation where issues presented in litigation are subject of arbitration agreement; plaintiff's attempt to distinguish defendant's absolute liability under note in contract are spurious where, under plain language of contract, defendant's absolute liability does not arise until arbitrator resolves issues of whether plaintiff's predecessor defaulted under note and properly exercised its right of setoff; in such case, litigation against defendant is attempt to evade agreed upon arbitration. Morrie Mages & Shirlee Mages Foundation v Thrifty Corp. (1990, CA7 Ill) 916 F2d 402.
   Third-party dispute between owner and charterer of vessel is properly stayed where two clauses in charter party agreements support conclusion that third party dispute should be subject to arbitration. Penalver v Compagnie de Navigation Frutiere (1977, ED NY) 428 F Supp 1070.
   General assignment and estoppel principles bind assignee of contract to arbitration clause in contract between assignor and third party. Tai Ping Ins. Tai Ping Ins. Co. v Vessel M/V Warschau (1983, ED La) 556 F Supp 187, vacated on other grounds (1984, CA5 La) 731 F2d 1141, 1985 AMC 575.
   Proceedings on third-party complaint are severed and stayed pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, where stevedore sued vessel owner which sought indemnity from time charterer, because agreement between owner and charterer calls for referral of "any dispute" to arbitration. Ivey v Baronia Shipping Co. (1989, ED Mich) 741 F Supp 130.
   Federal law mandates that court stay case pending arbitration, where commercial tenant is third-party beneficiary of construction contract, but is also bound by arbitration clause in that contract, because contract requires all disputes to be submitted to arbitration, and third-party beneficiary must accept burdens or limitations of contract along with its benefits. Kmart Corp. v Balfour Beatty, Inc. (1998, DC VI) 994 F Supp 634.
   Shipper's action against vessel manager will not be stayed pending arbitration with vessel owner, where claims against manager sound in tort rather than contract, which provides framework for pending arbitration, because 9 USCS § 3 is inapplicable since manager is not party to arbitration agreement in vessel charter, and possibility of conflicting or duplicative results and potential for inefficient resolution of these disputes do not favor stay. Bayoil Supply & Trading v Jorgen Jahre Shipping AS (1999, SD Tex) 54 F Supp 2d 691, 2000 AMC 298.
   Third-party claims in patent infringement suit involving use of certain prepaid calling card equipment and software must be arbitrated, where third party, accused by alleged infringer of not honoring its agreement to protect and defend patent claims, cites arbitration clause in same agreement, because broadly worded arbitration clause must be honored, and exemption for "unauthorized use" refers only to use unauthorized by third party and is not applicable here. Aerotel, Ltd. v RSL Communs., Ltd. (2000, SD NY) 99 F Supp 2d 368.

27. Time charters
   Where estate of deceased longshoreman brought action against shipowner, and shipowner interpleaded time charterer of vessel, dispute between shipowner and time charterer is subject to arbitration under clause of time charter which provides that any dispute which arises between owner and charterers should be referred to arbitration, since such clauses should be interpreted to include not only claims arising under charter but also any dispute arising out of maritime venture initiated by charter party, and action will be stayed pending arbitration; fact that shipowner alleges that injury to stevedore, if any, was caused by negligence of time charterer's port captain does not, in view of overriding federal policy favoring arbitration, make dispute nonarbitrable. Bryant v Prince Line, Ltd. (1973, SD NY) 363 F Supp 405.
Arbitration clause is not confined to owner or charterer, under 9 USCS § 3, where terms are general and would bind present holder and owner of bill of lading, if it clearly incorporates terms of charter, since where terms of charter party are expressly incorporated into bills of lading they are part of contract of carriage and are binding upon those making claims for damages for breach of that contract just as they would be if dispute were between charterer and shipowner. Amstar Corp. (American Sugar Div.) v SS Union Australia (1978, SD NY) 445 F Supp 940.

28. Other
   Where plaintiff demanded money alleged to be due him on contract, and contract itself contained arbitration clause, demand constituted issue referable to arbitration, so that defendant's application for stay of trial of action until arbitration had been had was not premature. Donahue v Susquehanna Collieries Co. (1943, CA3 Pa) 138 F2d 3, 7 CCH LC P 61758, 149 ALR 271.
   On motion of defendant to stay breach of contract action pending arbitration, defendant is entitled to have court decide whether written contract containing arbitration clause is still in effect or whether it has been superseded, as plaintiff claims, by oral agreement to perform same work. J & R Sportswear & Co. v Bobbie Brooks, Inc. (1979, CA3 Pa) 611 F2d 29, 28 FR Serv 2d 1246.
   It was error for District Court to deny defendant's motion for stay pending arbitration of breach of contract dispute on ground that plaintiff was entitled to jury trial as to whether written contract containing arbitration clause bound parties. J & R Sportswear & Co. v Bobbie Brooks, Inc. (1979, CA3 Pa) 611 F2d 29, 28 FR Serv 2d 1246.
   Trial court abused discretion in staying arbitration of claim by contractor against city for additional compensation where city would not suffer irreparable harm, contractor would suffer irreparable harm, and public interest would be thwarted. Meridian v Algernon Blair, Inc. (1983, CA5 Miss) 721 F2d 525.
   District Court erred in declining to stay proceedings in action by American buyer against Japanese seller based upon violations of statute, bribery, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contractual relations, notwithstanding that decision to stay balance of proceedings pending arbitration is matter largely within District Court's discretion, where 5 out of 7 counts were arbitrable under sales agreement and broad stay orders were particularly appropriate if arbitrable claims predominated lawsuit and nonarbitrable claims were of questionable merit. Genesco, Inc. v T. Kakiuchi & Co. (1987, CA2 NY) 815 F2d 840, 1987-1 CCH Trade Cases P 67512.
Arbitration clause in towage agreement containing "any dispute" language is of broad type and court should grant stay to permit arbitrators to decide whether dispute over indemnity and contribution falls within agreement. In re Complaint of Hornbeck Offshore Corp. (1993, CA5 Tex) 981 F2d 752, 1993 AMC 1248, reh den (1993, CA5) 1993 US App LEXIS 2344.
   Where license agreement provided for arbitration of matter in controversy between parties, action brought for payment of royalties was referred before consideration was given plaintiff's contentions. Pioneer Trust & Sav. Pioneer Trust & Sav. Bank v Screw Machine Products Co. (1947, DC Wis) 73 F Supp 578.
   Where agreements in bill of lading between two Portugese corporations provide that Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies to cargo shipped to New York, and that disputes are subject to arbitration in Lisbon, Portugal, district court properly permits stay of action commenced under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act pending such arbitration. Uniao de Transportadores Para Importacao e Comercio, Ltda. v Companhia de Navegacao Carregadores Acoreanos (1949, DC NY) 84 F Supp 582.
   There is no doubt that alleged slander gives rise to dispute clearly within scope of agreement requiring arbitration of any disputes between parties with respect to agreement or concerning any delays or failures, and arbitration will be compelled where slander complained of is that defendant airline had alleged that delay in flight was inexcusable and wholly fault of charterer which provided group air travel chartered trips. Tac Travel America Corp. v World Airways, Inc. (1978, SD NY) 443 F Supp 825.
   Suit by assignee of security interest against account debtor is properly stayed pending arbitration where contract contains broad arbitration clause and assignee cannot establish that debtor was given notice of assignment, and separate agreement between assignee and debtor is not separable from basic contract. Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas v Amoco Oil Co. (1983, SD NY) 573 F Supp 1464.
   In context of international loan agreement, plaintiff's RICO claims are arbitrable under arbitration clause contained in loan agreement. Development Bank of Philippines v Chemtex Fibers, Inc. (1985, SD NY) 617 F Supp 55.
   Action to recover damages arising from corporation's alleged wrongful use of name is stayed where party had raised same issue in arbitration proceedings; RICO claims are stayed pending arbitration where predicate offenses alleged in RICO claim are based entirely on transactions underlying breach of contract claims in arbitration proceeding. J.D. Marshall International, Inc. v Redstart, Inc. (1987, ND Ill) 656 F Supp 830.
   U.S. Maritime Administration has no duty to arbitrate claim against company and its subsidiaries under 46 USCS Appx §§ 1275(e) and 1280, and thus company's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration is denied under 9 USCS § 3, where (1) Administration guaranteed ship financing bonds, (2) action seeks to protect United State's security interest, and (3) security agreement between Administration and company--which agreed to build 2 tankers--explicitly exempts Administration from company's agreement with second company to arbitrate disputes involving construction of liquefied natural gas tankers, because Administration did not assume second company's duty to arbitrate. United States v Panhandle Eastern Corp. (1987, DC Del) 672 F Supp 149.
   Dispute over natural gas prices is ripe for arbitration under 9 USCS § 3 despite limited communication between parties, where (1) arbitration agreement covers all "fair value" disputes and (2) dispute involves alleged failure of gas supplier to adequately compensate gas user for deregulated gas; proper issue is scope of arbitration clause and nature of dispute, not extent and nature of dispute's discussion. Marlin Oil Corp. v Colorado Interstate Gas Co. (1988, WD Okla) 700 F Supp 1076, 108 OGR 519.
   Seller's declaratory judgment action against buyer is stayed pending arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, where disagreement involves purchase price for 2 department store divisions which was to be determined in accordance with pricing formula contingent upon "working capital" as measured according to seller's accounting policies and past practices, because issues involve complex and technical accounting questions suited for arbitration and within arbitration clause encompassing "any dispute regarding calculations." Campeau Corp. v May Dep't Stores Co. (1989, SD NY) 723 F Supp 224.
   Action for breach of exclusive distributor agreement is stayed pending arbitration, even though local antitrust law prohibits such arbitration, because Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) espouses increasingly recognized federal policy favoring arbitration, and distributor agreement contained clear and valid arbitration agreement that must be enforced. GKG Caribe, Inc. v Nokia-Mobira, Inc. (1989, DC Puerto Rico) 725 F Supp 109.
   Bank's action to recover sum allegedly owed by company as a result of tax sharing agreement is stayed pending arbitration pursuant to 9 USCS § 3 where clear language in tax-sharing agreement dictated that disputes over computation of company's former subsidiary's tax return would be submitted to arbitration. Third Nat'l Bank v Wedge Group, Inc. (1990, MD Tenn) 749 F Supp 851.
   Action by Saudi Arabian corporation against Connecticut corporation, seeking to recover payment for sales of titanium dioxide, is stayed pending arbitration, where parties agreed to arbitration clause that covered "any disputes" arising out of agreement, because given policy in favor of arbitration and broad language of clause, payment disputes should be arbitrated even though sales were documented on defendant's own purchase-order forms which provided that form was exclusive statement of terms of agreement. National Titanium Dioxide Co. v Velco Enters. (1995, SD NY) 879 F Supp 372.
   Mobile home purchasers must arbitrate their claims against dealers, where terms of executed purchase contract, including arbitration clause, govern sale and assent to arbitration was not fraudulently induced, because Congress did not intend Magnuson-Moss Act (15 USCS §§ 2301 et seq.) to override Federal Arbitration Act's (9 USCS §§ 1 et seq.) general mandate and preclude binding arbitration of nonwritten and implied warranty claims. Boyd v Homes of Legend (1997, MD Ala) 981 F Supp 1423.
   Action is stayed and utilities ordered to proceed to arbitration in accordance with procedures established in Article XV of Joint Pole Agreement, where telephone company disputes electric company's bill for tree clearance costs following ice storm, because Agreement contains valid arbitration clause, dispute falls within its scope, and telephone company has not waived its right to arbitration. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co. (1999, DC Me) 62 F Supp 2d 152.
   Under Supremacy Clause of U.S. Constitution, claims by credit cardholder seeking injunctive relief from allegedly unfair actions of issuer were required to be submitted to arbitration under arbitration provision of credit card agreement, pursuant to 9 USCS § 3, even though California legislature intended that unfair competition claims involving injunctive relief not be submitted to arbitration. Arriaga v Cross Country Bank (2001, SD Cal) 163 F Supp 2d 1189.
   Mortgagors' action against mortgagee is dismissed in favor of arbitration under 9 USCS § 3, where they seek statutory damages pursuant to 15 USCS § 1640, rescission pursuant to 15 USCS § 1635, declaratory relief, equitable relief, and attorney's fees, because clear language of arbitration clause vests arbitrator with authority to adjudicate each claim and to award all relief sought. Large v Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp. (2001, DC RI) 167 F Supp 2d 203.