Lamps Plus Never Should Have Gotten This Far


May 23, 2019
By Bryan Lammon

In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking arbitration could appeal a district court decision that dismissed an action after ordering classwide arbitration (instead of the individual arbitration the defendant wanted). In doing so, the Court elided an issue that has split the courts of appeals for years: whether a district court must stay an action—not dismiss it—after ordering arbitration. Resolution of that issue affects appellate jurisdiction. And had the Court resolved it and held that stays are required, it would have had to dismiss Lamps Plus for lack of jurisdiction.

Stays, Dismissals, and Appellate Jurisdiction in Arbitration

Given the appellate-jurisdiction implications of this issue, I think the “must-stay” side of the split has to be right. (For a much more thorough discussion of the split, see this note by Alessandra Rose Johnson .) The issue arises when a plaintiff sues, but the district court orders that the plaintiff’s claims be arbitrated. The district court must then decide what to do with the plaintiff’s suit while arbitration proceeds—stay the action or dismiss it.

If the district court stays the action, an appeal must generally wait until after arbitration. Congress enacted a pro-arbitration appellate scheme in the Federal Arbitration Act. Decisions adverse to arbitration, such as an order refusing to direct arbitration, can be immediately appealed.1 But decisions favorable to arbitration—including orders staying an action while arbitration proceeds—are not immediately appealable and must await resolution of arbitration before they can be appealed.2

If the district court dismisses the action, however, the parties can immediately appeal. That’s because a dismissal is a “final decision,” and final decisions regarding arbitration can be immediately appealed.3 The Supreme Court held as much in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph. But the Randolph Court also left open the issue of whether a stay is required; it assumed that a dismissal is permissible.

In the context of arbitration, a stay and dismissal seem functionally the same: the dispute goes to arbitration and proceeds no further in the district court until arbitration is concluded. If the case was stayed, a district court can lift the stay after arbitration to address any remaining issues. If the case was dismissed, the plaintiff can file a new suit in the same district court.

The only real difference is whether the district court’s decision can be immediately appealed. It can’t with a stay. But it can with a dismissal. Dismissals thus allow parties to avoid the Federal Arbitration Act’s pro-arbitration appellate scheme. So it would seem that stays are required.

The Court Avoids the Issue in Lamps Plus

Justice Breyer essentially argued as much in his Lamps Plus dissent. He regarded the district court’s decision as an interlocutory order directing arbitration to proceed. He also contended that the district court should not have dismissed—in fact, lacked the discretion to dismiss—the action.

The Lamps Plus majority nevertheless avoided the issue. Neither party had asked the district court to stay the plaintiff’s action (and thus the district court had not denied a stay). So the Court thought that the stay v. dismissal issue was not before it.

That’s a bit odd. It’s not as though the district court could have neither stayed nor dismissed the plaintiff’s claims; it had to do something with them. So even if the parties had not asked for a stay, so long as a dismissal is improper, the stay was required. And since the issue went to jurisdiction, I think the Court could have addressed it.

The New Problem: Effective Denials of Arbitration

And in avoiding the stay v. dismissal issue, the Court has created a new problem. It had to go on to address the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant lacked appellate standing. After all, the defendant in Lamps Plus had sought, and was granted, an order directing arbitration to proceed. It just didn’t get the exact kind of arbitration it wanted—individual arbitration instead of classwide.

The plaintiff in Lamps Plus accordingly argued that the defendant lacked standing to appeal. The Court disagreed. According to the Court, there was enough of a difference between what the defendant wanted and what it got to warrant appellate standing.

One can reasonably distinguish between individual and classwide arbitration. But it’s a distinction that invites future appeals. It gives parties who seek arbitration, but who do not get the exact arbitration they sought, the grist to argue that they were effectively denied arbitration and can therefore appeal. This argument holds even if the district court stays (rather than dismisses) the underlying action; the party seeking arbitration has been denied the arbitration it wanted and thus can argue it has been effectively denied.

As Justice Breyer’s dissent points out, the courts of appeals have generally held that they lack jurisdiction to review orders compelling arbitration even if that arbitration is not precisely what the party seeking arbitration wanted. So long as some arbitration is ordered, the courts have declined to entertain claims that a party was effectively denied arbitration.

Lamps Plus now invites parties who seek and obtain arbitration orders to immediately appeal if they don’t get precisely what they wanted. To be sure, not all of these appeals will necessarily be allowed. But the courts of appeals will nevertheless have to deal with these attempts.

All of this could have been avoided—and a long-standing split resolved—had the Supreme Court tackled the jurisdictional issue lurking in Lamps Plus.

Links

  1. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1) (“An appeal may be taken from an order (A) refusing a stay of any action under Section 3 of this title [or] (B) denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed . . . .”) ↩︎
  2. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(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 [or] (2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title . . . .”). ↩︎
  3. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) (“An appeal may be taken from . . . a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title.”). ↩︎

Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.

Learn More Contact

Related Posts


In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.

Continue reading....

In Hines v. Stamos (no PDF currently available), the Fifth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review a personal-jurisdiction defense as part of an arbitration appeal. But the discussion was entirely unnecessary. The district court had never ruled on the personal-jurisdiction defense, meaning that there was no order to review. And the panel […]

Continue reading....

In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme Court held that district courts must stay—not dismiss—an action if the district court orders arbitration and a party requests a stay. The decision resolves a long-standing split over the ability to dismiss actions after ordering arbitration. The decision also has implications for appellate jurisdiction. As I’ve explained on this […]

Continue reading....

Courts have held that when an “order” is appealable—say, via a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar on remand appeals—the entirety of the district court’s order is within the scope of appeal. So when a district court certifies an order for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b), the […]

Continue reading....

In Coinbase, Inc., v. Bielski, the Supreme Court held that district courts must stay proceedings on the merits once a party appeals from the denial of arbitration. The Court determined that 9 U.S.C. § 16—which authorizes these appeals—was enacted against Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.’s background principal that a district court loses control over all […]

Continue reading....

Recent Posts


I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]

Continue reading....

In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]

Continue reading....

In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.

Continue reading....

Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]

Continue reading....

In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]

Continue reading....