Smith v. Spizzirri
Issues
Does a district court violate Section Three of the Federal Arbitration Act when the court dismisses a claim subject to arbitration rather than stay the lawsuit?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Section Three of the Federal Arbitration Act is violated when courts dismiss claims subject to arbitration agreements. Smith, and other delivery truck drivers, argue that the use of “shall” in Section Three compels courts to stay claims pending arbitration, promoting the underlying purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act. Spizzirri counters that the language in Section Three is ambiguous, and allowing courts to dismiss claims will actually promote the efficiency of arbitration agreements and protect these contracts from interference by courts. The outcome of this case has serious implications for the ability of plaintiffs to have courts oversee arbitration agreements and their ability to appeal.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was created to promote an alternative method of dispute resolution. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16. The FAA favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements over litigation “in order to realize… lower costs, and greater efficiency and speed. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v.
Additional Resources
- Sarah B. Biser and Craig R. Tractenberg, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Arbitration Case That Split Appeals Courts, Fox Rothschild (February 5, 2024).
- Steven K. Davidson et al., “Should I Stay or Should I Go” Supreme Court to Address Circuit Clash Over Arbitration Procedures, Steptoe (February 6, 2024).
- Smith v. Spizzirri: Supreme Court to Consider Whether Federal Courts May Dismiss a Lawsuit Subject to Arbitration, Congressional Research Service (March 4, 2024).