At page 282 Determining court power to consolidate arbitration proceedings15 citing casesParties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.
- Gov't of United Kingdom of Great Britain v. Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993).published(Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.)
- Gov't of the United Kingdom v. Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993).published(Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.)
- Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2014).published(Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.)
- Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Freeman, 717 S.E.2d 43 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).published(construing § 4 of the Act, which *403 provides for judicially compelled arbitration, to “narrowly circumscribe[]” the power of the federal courts)
- United States v. Stein, 452 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).publishedCorp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989); Del E.
- Lomax v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2002).published(agreeing with several other ■ circuit' courts that a district court may not order class-wide arbitration of claims if the arbitration agreement does not specifically provide the parties with- this form of remedy)
- Local 1351 Int'l Longshoremens Ass'n v. Sea-Land Serv. Inc., 214 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2000).publishedCorp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (stating that “[pjarties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, feder…
- Randolph v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 991 F. Supp. 1410 (M.D. Ala. 1998).published Life Ins., 873 F.2d 281 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam), the Eleventh Circuit addressed the issue of “whether a district court may consolidate arbitration proceedings if the parties have not provided for consolidation in their arbitration agr…
- Champ v. Siegel Trading Co., 55 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 1995).published Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that "the sole question for the district court is whether there is a written agreement among the parties providing for consolidated arbitration"); Del E.
- Gammaro v. Thorp Consum. Disc. Co., 828 F. Supp. 673 (D. Minn. 1993).publishedCorp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Del E.
Show 3 more citing cases
- P/R CLIPPER GAS v. PPG Indus., Inc., 804 F. Supp. 570 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).publishedCorp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989), Fifth Circuit, Del E.
- Alan A. Booth, Counter-Defendant v. Hume Publ'g, Inc., 902 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1990).published(construing § 4 of the Act, which provides for judicially compelled arbitration, to “narrowly circumscribe[ ]” the power of the federal courts)
- Baesler v. Cont'l Grain Co., 900 F.2d 1193 (8th Cir. 1990).published Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989); Del E.
At page 281 “parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.”0 citing cases
v.
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellant
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and its order consolidating the arbitration of Lincoln’s dispute with appellee Protective Life Insurance Company (“Protective”) and the arbitration of claims between Protective and a third party, Munich American Reassurance Company (“Munich”). The only issue we must decide is whether a district court may consolidate arbitration proceedings if the parties have not provided for consolidation in their arbitration agreements. We conclude that it may not.
We agree with the reasoning of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Western Seas Shipping Co., 743 F.2d 635 (9th Cir.1984), in which the court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sec. 1 et seq., the power of federal courts is “narrowly circumscribed.” Id. at 637. Section 4 of the Act provides that if the existence of an arbitration agreement is in issue, the district court shall proceed to try that issue; once the district court is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration between the parties exists, the district court “shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement.” 9 U.S.C. sec. 4. The statute limits the power of the court to determining whether a written arbitration agreement exists, and if it does, to enforcing it “in accordance with its terms.” Id.
As the Ninth Circuit observed, this interpretation of section 4 “comports with the statute’s underlying premise that arbitration is a creature of contract, and that ‘[a]n agreement to arbitrate before a special tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause that posits not only the situs of suit but also the procedure to be used in resolving the dispute.’ ” Id. (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 2457, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)). Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.
We conclude, therefore, that “the sole question for the district court is whether there is a written agreement among the parties providing for consolidated arbitration.” Del E. Webb Construction Co. v. Richardson Hospital Authority, 823 F.2d 145, 149 (5th Cir.1987).[1] The agreements between Protective and Lincoln and between Protective and Munich contain their own arbitration clauses, and each clause requires arbitration only between the parties to that agreement. The three parties never agreed to consolidated arbitration. The decision of the district court granting summary judgment and ordering consolida[*283]tion is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In holding that the only proper inquiry for the district court is whether the parties have explicitly consented to consolidation in their arbitration agreements, we reject Protective’s argument that district courts have the power to consolidate arbitration proceedings under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 42(a) and 81(a)(3). See Del E. Webb Constr. Co., 823 F.2d at 149-50.