Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070 (2026)

Motion to compel or stay arbitration

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) On motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate if the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion. If the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. Unless the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate. If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement, it may not order the parties to arbitrate.

(2) 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. If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement, it may not order the parties to arbitrate.

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

(4) If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in court, a motion under this section must be filed in that court. Otherwise a motion under this section may be filed in any court as required by RCW 7.04A.270.

(5) If a party files a motion with the court to order arbitration under this section, the court shall on just terms 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.

(6) If the court orders arbitration, the court shall on just terms stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may sever it and limit the stay to that claim.

[ 2005 c 433 s 7.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Seattle, Inc. v. Yates, Wood & MacDonald, Inc., 369 P.3d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Seattle, Inc. v. Yates, Wood & MacDonald, Inc., 369 P.3d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Before substantial discovery had been conducted, Marcus & Millichap and Yates filed cross motions pursuant to RCW 7.04A.070, seeking to stay and compel the arbitration, respectively.”

River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, 272 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.04A.070(1) provides that when presented with a motion to compel arbitration that is opposed, the court “shall proceed summarily to decide the issue.”

In re the Marriage of Pascale, 173 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “” RCW 7.04A.070(3). Instead, when determining whether a dispute must be arbitrated, the court must limit its inquiry to the question of whether that dispute falls within the scope of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.”

Verbeek Props., LLC v. GreenCo Env't, Inc., 159 Wash. App. 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “” RCW 7.04A.070(1). The act does set forth procedures for initiating arbitration in RCW 7.”

Puget Sound Env't Corp. v. Everett Shipyard, Inc., 231 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “” ¶21 RCW 7.04A.070(1) governs the court’s authority to compel arbitration based on a party’s refusal to arbitrate.”

Verbeek Props. v. Greenco Environ, 246 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" RCW 7.04A.070(1). The act does set forth procedures for initiating arbitration in RCW 7.”

Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash. App. 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 7.04A.070(1) (emphasis added). Under this subsection, the court must order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.”

Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 224 P.3d 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 7.04A.070(1) (emphasis added). Under this subsection, the court must order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.”

Anthony Healy v. Seattle Rugby, Llc, 476 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “2d 648 (1986)); see also RCW 7.04A.070(1) (providing that a court shall order parties to arbitrate upon “a showing [of] an agreement to arbitrate”).”

Weiss v. Lonnquist, 153 Wash. App. 502 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “1995)); *511 RCW 7.04A.070(1) (providing that a court shall order parties to arbitrate upon a “showing [of] an agreement to arbitrate”).”

Weiss v. Lonnquist, 224 P.3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “1995)) (applying FAA); RCW 7.04A.070(1) (providing that a court shall order parties to arbitrate upon a "showing [of] an agreement to arbitrate").”

Est. OF ECKSTEIN EX REL. LUCKEY v. Life Care Centers of Am., 623 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (E.D. Wash. 2009). “Defendants next point to WAA, and specifically RCW 7.04A.070(1) which states, in relevant part: On motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person’s refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate if…”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070(1) — 23 cases

River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, 272 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 7.04A.070(1) provides that when presented with a motion to compel arbitration that is opposed, the court “shall proceed summarily to decide the issue.”

Verbeek Props., LLC v. GreenCo Env't, Inc., 159 Wash. App. 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “” RCW 7.04A.070(1). The act does set forth procedures for initiating arbitration in RCW 7.”

Verbeek Props. v. Greenco Environ, 246 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “" RCW 7.04A.070(1). The act does set forth procedures for initiating arbitration in RCW 7.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070(2) — 3 cases

Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Seattle, Inc. v. Yates, Wood & MacDonald, Inc., 369 P.3d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Before substantial discovery had been conducted, Marcus & Millichap and Yates filed cross motions pursuant to RCW 7.04A.070, seeking to stay and compel the arbitration, respectively.”

Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass'n, 182 Wash. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

Tracy Hopkins, Res. V. Bristol-myers Squibb Co. & Ann Houseman, Apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070(3) — 4 cases

In re the Marriage of Pascale, 173 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 7.04A.070(3). Instead, when determining whether a dispute must be arbitrated, the court must limit its inquiry to the question of whether that dispute falls within the scope of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.”

In Re The Marriage Of: Nia J. Collins & Robert L. Collins (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Lisa R. Pascale, Resp. v. Michael J. Pascale, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Darice D. Gamache & Todd J. Gamache (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070(5) — 4 cases

Htp, Inc. v. Jc Aviation Investments, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Jones v. Sequoia Equities Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Kenneth Bryant, V. William Bryant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Mary Rushing v. Franklin Hills Health & Rehab. Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070(6) — 6 cases

Puget Sound Env't Corp. v. Everett Shipyard, Inc., 231 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “” ¶21 RCW 7.04A.070(1) governs the court’s authority to compel arbitration based on a party’s refusal to arbitrate.”

Futureselect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 413 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2018).

Kenneth Bryant, V. William Bryant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Everett Shipyard v. Puget Sound Envt'l, 231 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

SVN Cornerstone LLC v. N. 807 Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

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.