Contrarily, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned the efficiency of dismissal, pondering whether it truly reduces system strain compared to simply staying the case inactive. She pointed out the potential complications when a plaintiff succeeds in arbitration and then must seek court confirmation of the award.
Staying Arbitration Cases: Legal Implications and Court Burdens
Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about the implications of dismissing arbitrable suits, specifically how it might compel plaintiffs to return to court after potential statute limitations have expired. This scenario, according to Kagan, adds complexity and potential legal entanglements.
In response, Rosenkranz acknowledged these challenges but suggested there were straightforward solutions to issues like statute limitations, although Kagan remained skeptical about the simplicity of these solutions.
Advocating for Staying Cases
Daniel L. Geyser, representing the drivers, argued for the benefits of staying arbitration cases, noting that it avoids confusion and does not significantly burden the courts. He suggested practical measures such as requiring succinct status updates or labeling dockets as inactive during arbitration proceedings.
