9 U.S.C. § 3
Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, 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, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,571
cases (1,738 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: Renee Tillman v. Rheingold Valet Rheingold Etc, 825 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016).
Renee Tillman v. Rheingold Valet Rheingold Etc, 825 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016). “See 9 U.S.C. § 3 ; Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs.”
Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Iowa 2018). “9 U.S.C. § 3 . If a court determines that a claim falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement, under sections three and four of the FAA, the court may stay proceedings and compel the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration.”
Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983). “The Act provides two parallel devices for enforcing an arbitration agreement: a stay of litigation in any case raising a dispute referable to arbitration, 9 U. S. C. § 3 , and an affirmative order to engage in arbitration, § 4.”
Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc. v. Cahill, 786 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2015). “” 9 U.S.C. § 3 . The district court granted Mr.”
Dapuzzo v. Globalvest Mgmt. Co., L.P., 263 F. Supp. 2d 714 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “” (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4) (emphasis in original)); Genesco, Inc.”
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Jr. U., 489 U.S. 468 (1989). “Volt also asked the court to stay the Superior Court litigation until the arbitration was completed, presumably pursuant to § 3 of the FAA, 9 U. S. C. § 3 , and the parallel provision of the California Arbitration Act, Cal.”
Jacqueline Galloway v. Santander Consum. USA, Inc, 819 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 2016). “On that basis, the court initially granted Santander’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 . See 2 The court also concluded that Galloway’s proposed amendment of her complaint would be futile.”
Green v. Supershuttle Int'l, Inc., 653 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2011). “See 9 U.S.C. § 3 (stating district courts " shall .”
Feldman/Matz Interests, L.L.P. v. Settlement Capital Corp., 140 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App. 2004). “9 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added). B. This Court Has Held that a Trial Court Cannot Hold a Temporary Injunction Hearing When Arbitration Has Been Invoked.”
Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009). “” 9 U. S. C. § 3 . Section 16(a)(1)(A), in turn, allows an appeal from “an order.”
Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). “” 9 U. S. C. § 3 . In this case, petitioners fled suit against respondents in state court alleging violations of federal and state employment laws.”
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176 (2019). “9 U. S. C. §3 (emphasis added). Here, no party sought a stay.”
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.