Regions Bank Account Agreement

The District Court rejected Regions` request to impose arbitration on the basis that there was no arbitration agreement between Douglas and Regions, since, under Mississippi law, the interests of the Planters Union (regions) did not participate in the arbitration agreement. It is significant that Douglas does not defend the regional court`s argument on appeal. It admits that Regions participated in the original arbitration agreement in a partisan manner under Mississippi law and, in fact, it appears that it never argued in response to the request not to match the successor status of the regions to the agreement. While the argument that the claim at issue falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement is “totally unfounded,” Douglas certainly never intended to clear the light of the world in the event of unnecessarily costly and unnecessarily costly arbitration of the bridge. We conclude that, in agreeing to arbitrate “the validity, applicability or scope of this arbitration provision,” Douglas did not intend to engage for life in gateway arbitration for any claims that might ever exist between it and the regions. It only wanted to focus on issues of simplicity arbitration if the argument that the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement was not entirely unfounded. A delegation is an “agreement to arbitrate issues of “arbitrate,” such as.B. Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S.C.

2772, 2777, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010). The parties may agree to decide whether a particular claim is subject to arbitration as long as they do so clearly and unambiguously in their agreement. Chi., Inc.`s first options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.C. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). Therefore, delegation provisions normally require an arbitrator to decide in the first place whether a dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provision. There is no doubt that Douglas clearly intended to arbitrate the bridge issues.3 When deciding whether the parties agreed to file a particular appeal before an arbitration proceeding, a court should not rule on the potential benefits of the underlying claims. Whether it is “contentious” or not, even if it appears lightly in court, the union`s argument that the employer breached the collective agreement should not be decided by the court that requested the arbitration, but as the parties accepted, by the arbitrator. Courts therefore have no activity to assess the merits of the complaint when considering whether there is equity in a particular claim or whether the written instrument has a specific language that supports its law. The agreement is to submit all complaints to arbitration, not just those that the court deems meritorious.

Despite the undisputed provision of the agreement that issues relating to the scope of the agreement must be decided by an arbitrator, the majority considers that “the idea that [Douglas] falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement is “totally unfounded”. Although the majority called the test “totally unjustified” “Qualcomm/Agere Test,” it was not yet the law of this circuit, see Agere Sys., Inc.