Supreme Court Decisions

The End of Arbitration + Dismissal Appeals?

The Supreme Court held that a district court cannot dismiss an action instead of issuing a stay when the district court orders arbitration a party requests a stay.

May 21, 2024

By Bryan Lammon

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 site before, parties can appeal from an order that directs arbitration and dismisses an action. But if the district court stays the action, there is normally no immediate appeal from the decision ordering arbitration. With stays now required at a party’s request, we will likely see fewer appeals from decisions ordering arbitration.

One thing Smith didn’t expressly address, however, is what to do if no one asks for a stay.

The Stays-Required Decision

The Supreme Court found support for its holding in the text, structure, and purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in the role the Act envisions for district courts.

Text

As for text, the relevant statutory provision (9 U.S.C. § 3) says that the district court “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.” Shall, the Court explained, “creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.” So under § 3, the district court must stay an action at a party’s request.

Structure & Purpose

As for structure and purpose, stays are necessary to avoid immediate appeals from decisions ordering arbitration.

Although the Federal Arbitration Act permits many appeals from decisions refusing to order arbitration, Congress prohibited most appeals from decisions ordering arbitration. But the Supreme Court has held that a decision directing arbitration and then dismissing the action is an appealable final decision. Given Congress’s intention to rapidly move arbitrable disputes to arbitration, stays are necessary to avoid delay from immediate appeals.

The District Court’s Role

The Supreme Court added that its holding also comported with the supervisory role that the Federal Arbitration Act envisions for district courts. With the action stayed, the parties can return to the district court should the need arise (to, for example, select an arbitrator or enforce an award). They don’t need to file a new action, which a dismissal would require.

Thoughts on Smith

A few thoughts on Smith.

First, long time readers won’t be surprised that I think the Supreme Court got this one right. I argued for the stay-required rule back in 2019 after the Supreme Court decided Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. As I said then, dismissing actions undermines the appellate scheme for arbitration. The stay-required rule avoids that problem.

Second, Smith will probably require reconsideration in some pending cases. For example, in Diaz v. Macys West Stores, Inc.—a Ninth Circuit decision from a couple weeks ago—there was some uncertainty over whether the district court stayed or dismissed an action after ordering arbitration. But the district court had closed the action and said that there were no claims remaining before it. That led the Ninth Circuit to conclude that the district court had dismissed the action. Smith might require reconsideration of that conclusion.

Third and finally is an issue that Smith might have left unresolved: what if no one asks for a stay? The statutory text speaks of a party asking the district court for a stay. And the Supreme Court said that a stay is required when a district court orders arbitration “and a party requests a stay pending arbitration.”

If a district court orders arbitration and no one has asked for a stay, can a district court then dismiss the action? I think not, given the Federal Arbitration Act’s appellate scheme. But Smith doesn’t expressly answer that question.

Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872 (May 16, 2024), available at the Supreme Court and Westlaw

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

An Unnecessary Discourse on Reviewing Personal Jurisdiction in Arbitration Appeals
The Fifth Circuits said that it could review a personal-jurisdiction defense as part of an arbitration appeal. But it didn't need to.
Appealable Orders, Not Appealable Documents
Just because the entirety of an “order” is appealable does not mean that other orders in the same document are appealable, too.
Coinbase Holds that § 16 Appeals Require a Stay
The Supreme Court held that the filing of a § 16 appeal from the denial of arbitration requires staying district court proceedings.
Appealing Motions to Dismiss & Compel Arbitration
The First Circuit explained that it can review the denial of a motion to dismiss when the only ground for dismissal was to compel arbitration.
Manufactured Finality in Arbitration Appeals
The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs can no longer voluntarily dismiss their claims and manufacture finality after a district court orders arbitration.