9 U.S.C. § 16

Appeals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 9 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An appeal may be taken from—(1) an order—(A) refusing a stay of any action under section 3 of this title,(B) denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed,(C) denying an application under section 206 of this title to compel arbitration,(D) confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award, or(E) modifying, correcting, or vacating an award;(2) an interlocutory order granting, continuing, or modifying an injunction against an arbitration that is subject to this title; or(3) a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title.(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order—(1) granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title;(2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title;(3) compelling arbitration under section 206 of this title; or(4) refusing to enjoin an arbitration that is subject to this title.(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1019(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4670, § 15; renumbered § 16, Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 325(a)(1), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5120.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–650 renumbered the second section 15 of this title as this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2,050 cases (506 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). · cites it 10× “9 U. S. C. §16 . Varela contends that the Ninth Circuit lacked statutory jurisdiction because section 16 permits appeal from orders denying motions to compel arbitration, §16(a)(1)(B), but not orders granting such motions, §16(b)(2).”

Virginia Van Dusen v. Swift Transp. Co, 830 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 23× “In addition, the order was not reviewable under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(B) on the basis that it had the practical effect of denying a motion to compel arbitration.”

Bruno Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC Wyatt, V.I., Inc. Bruno Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC Wyatt, V.I., Inc., 369 F.3d 263 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 10× “The District Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Lloyd’s Virgin Islands claims pursuant to 28 U.”

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023). · cites it 7× “Coinbase then fled an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 16 (a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.”

Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000). · cites it 8× “In this case we first address whether an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a party's underlying claims is a "final decision with respect to an arbitration" within the meaning of § 16(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 16 (a)(3), and thus is immediately…”

Paula Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “RENT-A-CENTER 3 The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of a discretionary stay because appellate jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act over interlocutory appeals is limited to the orders listed in 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1). The panel…”

Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc. v. Cahill, 786 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 12× “We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(A). On the merits, we affirm.”

Damian Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., 983 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “Ordinarily, a plaintiff in this position has two choices to appeal: arbitrate the claims to completion and then appeal as of right, see 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(3), (b)(1)–(3), or hope that the courts approve an interlocutory appeal, id.”

Sawyers v. Herrin-Gear Chevrolet Co., Inc., 26 So. 3d 1026 (Miss. 2010). · cites it 12× “See 9 U.S.C. § 16 (2006). We also find it necessary to discuss this Court's appellate jurisdiction over orders granting motions to compel arbitration and to resolve any ambiguity that may appear in prior decisions of this Court on this issue.”

Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc., 24 F.4th 804 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “” 9 U.S.C. § 16 . These two rules are jurisdictional.”

In Re Poly-Am., L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. 2008). · cites it 6× “See 9 U.S.C. § 16 (b)(1) ("[A]n appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order.”

Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010). · cites it 4× “See 9 U. S. C. §16 (a)(1)(E) (“An appeal may be taken from .”

Show all 2,050 citing cases →

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) — 2 cases

Proto Gage, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1) — 4 cases

French v. Wachovia Bank, 574 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2009).

Brad Tuckman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (11th Cir. 2021).

Brian French v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (7th Cir. 2009).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A) — 5 cases

Aceros Prefabricados, S.A. v. Tradearbed, Inc., 282 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2002).

Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc., 96 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 1996).

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Duke v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp. (2d Cir. 2026).

Herbal Aspect LLC v. Alexander Gish (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B) — 5 cases

Brickstructures, Inc. v. Coaster Dynamix, Inc., 952 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2020).

Arrowhead Contracting, Inc. v. M.H. Washington, LLC, 243 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Crowe v. GGNSC Ripley, LLC, 318 F. Supp. 3d 970 (N.D. Miss. 2018).

David Holm v. Menard, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).

Walker v. Builddirect.com Tech. Inc., 2015 OK 30 (Okla. 2015).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C) — 2 cases

Rasheed Al Rushaid v. Nat'l Oilwell Varc, 757 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. Joan McCray, 416 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App. 2013).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) — 2 cases

Jeffrey G. Harden v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 249 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001).

Prescott-Follett & Assocs., Inc. v. Delasa/Prescott-Follett & Assocs., 100 F. App'x 288 (5th Cir. 2004).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) — 3 cases

INTL FCStone Fin. Inc. v. Louise Farmer (7th Cir. 2020).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1) — 2 cases

Washington v. Persona Identities, Inc., 2024 IL App (3d) 240210 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).

Martinez v. Melloy Bros., Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).

— 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(3) — 1 case

Prescott-Follett & Assocs., Inc. v. Delasa/Prescott-Follett & Assocs., 100 F. App'x 288 (5th Cir. 2004).

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.