Resources

{ Banner Image } Print PDF
Share
Subscribe to Publications

People

Services

Supreme Court Holds That District Courts May Not Dismiss Lawsuits Pending Arbitration, But Instead Must Stay Them

May 16, 2024

On May 16, 2024, the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri addressed whether district courts are required to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or if they have the discretion to dismiss the suit when all the claims are subject to arbitration. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that when a district court finds a case involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the case pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) compels the court to issue a stay and the court does not have discretion to dismiss the case.

The case originated when the petitioners filed suit against the respondents in state court, alleging violations of federal and state employment laws. The respondents removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. The petitioners agreed that their claims were arbitrable, but argued that the Section 3 of the FAA required the district court to stay the case pending arbitration rather than dismissing it. The District Court dismissed the case without prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a stay is required under Section 3, and the case could not be dismissed. Section 3 provides in part that any court hearing a case referable to arbitration “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” The Court noted that Section 3 used the word “shall,” which creates an obligation that is not subject to judicial discretion. The Court interpreted the term “stay” to mean a “temporary suspension” of legal proceedings, not a dismissal.

If you have questions about how this case may affect your organization, please call your Miller Canfield lawyer or one of the authors of this alert.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek