NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7 (2026)

Motion to compel or stay arbitration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 1 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) On motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement:

(1) If the refusing party does not appeal or does not oppose the motion, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate; and

(2) If the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

(b) On motion of a person alleging that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is no agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. If the court finds that there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate.

(c) If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall not, pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this section, order the parties to arbitrate.

(d) The court shall not refuse to order arbitration because the claim subject to arbitration lacks merit or because grounds for the claim have not been established.

(e) If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in a court, a motion under this section shall be made in that court. Otherwise a motion under this section may be made in any court as provided in G.S. 1-569.27.

(f) If a party makes a motion to the court to order arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until the court renders a final decision under this section.

(g) If the court orders arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may limit the stay to that claim. (1973, c. 676, s. 1; 2003-345, s. 2.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Carter v. Td Ameritrade Holding Corp., 721 S.E.2d 256 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
Carter v. Td Ameritrade Holding Corp., 721 S.E.2d 256 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “North Carolina’s Revised Uniform Arbitration Act provides that, “[o]n a motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person’s refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement,” “[i]f the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed…”
Evangelistic Outreach Ctr. v. Gen. Steel Corp., 640 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “3 , now replaced by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7 (a)(2) (2005)).”
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2014 NCBC 10 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014). · cites it 14× “2d 256, 260 (2012) (trial court properly considered motion to compel arbitration under G.S. 1-569.7 in 18 See Gilead Br. 16. 19 Id.”
Howell v. Heafner, 2020 NCBC 65 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020). · cites it 13× “30, 2015) (holding that North Carolina law fills procedural gaps in the FAA, “including where claims might otherwise be governed by sections 3 and 4 of the FAA”).”
Moore v. Brooks, 2026 NCBC 52 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2026). · cites it 12× “Oct. 9, 2017) (internal citations omitted).”
Bilfinger Inc. v. Cargill (N.C. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7 (a)(2) (2023) (emphasis added).”
Local Soc., Inc. v. Stallings, 2017 NCBC 92 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017). · cites it 11× “Defendant moves to compel arbitration of all claims and counterclaims in this action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7 . (Mot. Stay Proceedings & Compel Arbitration, ECF No.”
Gaylor, Inc. of N.C. v. Vizor, LLC, 2015 NCBC 98 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2015). · cites it 14× “6, 2015) (noting that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7 and relevant case law require the trial court “to make finding[s of] fact[] in order to determine whether an ‘enforceable agreement to arbitrate’ exists .”
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Sci., Inc., 2015 NCBC 1 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2015). · cites it 13× “13 In its March 26, 2014, Amended Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Notice of Hearing ("Preliminary Order"),14 the Court chose to treat the Injunction Motions as preliminary requests pending a determination of Plaintiffs' Declaratory Judgment Claim, which the Court…”
Griessel v. Temas Eye Ctr., Pc, 678 S.E.2d 773 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “Section 1-569.7, the requirements of which a party also may not waive pursuant to § 1-569.”
Coles v. Sugarleaf Labs (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “The RUAA Does Not Allow for Dismissal ¶ 20 The plain text of the RUAA does not contemplate dismissal upon entry of an order compelling arbitration. To the contrary, it requires, in mandatory terms, that “the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a…”
Coles v. Sugarleaf Labs (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “The RUAA Does Not Allow for Dismissal ¶ 20 The plain text of the RUAA does not contemplate dismissal upon entry of an order compelling arbitration. To the contrary, it requires, in mandatory terms, that “the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7(a) — 3 cases
Griessel v. Temas Eye Ctr., Pc, 678 S.E.2d 773 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). “Section 1-569.7, the requirements of which a party also may not waive pursuant to § 1-569.”
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2014 NCBC 10 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014). “2d 256, 260 (2012) (trial court properly considered motion to compel arbitration under G.S. 1-569.7 in 18 See Gilead Br. 16. 19 Id.”
Howell v. Heafner, 2020 NCBC 65 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020). “30, 2015) (holding that North Carolina law fills procedural gaps in the FAA, “including where claims might otherwise be governed by sections 3 and 4 of the FAA”).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7(a)(2) — 2 cases
Howell v. Heafner, 2020 NCBC 65 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020). “30, 2015) (holding that North Carolina law fills procedural gaps in the FAA, “including where claims might otherwise be governed by sections 3 and 4 of the FAA”).”
Griessel v. Temas Eye Ctr., Pc, 678 S.E.2d 773 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). “Section 1-569.7, the requirements of which a party also may not waive pursuant to § 1-569.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7(b) — 2 cases
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2014 NCBC 10 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014). “2d 256, 260 (2012) (trial court properly considered motion to compel arbitration under G.S. 1-569.7 in 18 See Gilead Br. 16. 19 Id.”
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Sci., Inc., 2015 NCBC 1 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2015). “13 In its March 26, 2014, Amended Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Notice of Hearing ("Preliminary Order"),14 the Court chose to treat the Injunction Motions as preliminary requests pending a determination of Plaintiffs' Declaratory Judgment Claim, which the Court…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7(d) — 2 cases
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2014 NCBC 10 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014). “2d 256, 260 (2012) (trial court properly considered motion to compel arbitration under G.S. 1-569.7 in 18 See Gilead Br. 16. 19 Id.”
Cold Springs Ventures, LLC v. Gilead Sci., Inc., 2015 NCBC 1 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2015). “13 In its March 26, 2014, Amended Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Notice of Hearing ("Preliminary Order"),14 the Court chose to treat the Injunction Motions as preliminary requests pending a determination of Plaintiffs' Declaratory Judgment Claim, which the Court…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7(f) — 1 case
Rickenbaugh v. Power Home Solar, LLC, 2019 NCBC 79 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2019).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7(g) — 3 cases
Local Soc., Inc. v. Stallings, 2017 NCBC 92 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017). “Defendant moves to compel arbitration of all claims and counterclaims in this action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.7 . (Mot. Stay Proceedings & Compel Arbitration, ECF No.”
Hall v. Dancy, 2018 NCBC 61 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018).
Howell v. Heafner, 2020 NCBC 65 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020). “30, 2015) (holding that North Carolina law fills procedural gaps in the FAA, “including where claims might otherwise be governed by sections 3 and 4 of the FAA”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.