The drivers contend that their unfortunate location in the Ninth Circuit, where discretion to dismiss cases exists, led to their defeat. They argue that the conflict between circuits allowing discretion and those permitting only stays demands the Supreme Court’s intervention for a fair and uniform application of the law.
Arguments and Counterarguments
In a December brief, IntelliQuick vehemently opposed the call for certiorari, asserting that courts possess inherent authority to dismiss cases that are more fitting for arbitration. They argue that nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act abrogates a court’s discretionary power to dismiss a case, especially when all parties agree on arbitration.
The drivers counter that the choice between a stay and dismissal can significantly impact the litigation process. A dismissal can lead to an appeal, providing an opportunity to argue for a court trial again. On the other hand, a stay is a less flexible intermediate ruling that allows appeal only after arbitration concludes.
Ninth Circuit’s March Decision Under Scrutiny
The drivers urge the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s March decision, which aligns with the views of the First, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, allowing district courts the discretion to dismiss. In contrast, the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits permit stays only.
BREAKING: High Court To Weigh Letting Judges Toss Arbitration Cases : Implications for the Future
The ongoing conflict between circuits and the drivers’ plea for a nationwide, uniform approach underscore the urgency of Supreme Court intervention. The ultimate decision will shape the landscape of arbitration cases, impacting hundreds of litigations annually.
