The party who refuses arbitration has the burden of showing a real question of material fact, if the agreement is valid. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91 (2000). The required submission is similar to what is required to defeat a summary assessment request. Great Earth, 288 F.3d to 889. The district court must see all the facts and conclusions in the light most favourable to the party against the arbitration proceeding “and determine whether the evidence presented is in such a way that a reasonable discoverer might conclude that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate.” Id. (referring to Aiken v. City of Memphis, 190 F.3d 753, 755 (6th Cir. 1999) (recitation of the standard of summary judgment verification)). CVS argues that the parties delegate the issue of arbitration to the arbitrator.
While it is generally within the jurisdiction of the court, “to determine whether the parties have agreed to settle the dispute,” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985), the court is “ceded by that authority if the parties clearly and unequivocally state that an arbitrator must decide whether a dispute is an object.” New England Mech., Inc. v. Laborers Local Union 294, 909 F.2d 1339, 1345 (9. Cir. 1990) (citation AT-T Techs., Inc. v. Commc`ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986)); Brennan v.
Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9 cir 2015); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9 cir 2013). “In deciding whether the parties have agreed to settle a particular case (including debility), the courts in general . . . . Apply the general principles of the state that govern the drafting of contracts. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995).
But the accused lack a critical distinction. The rule they invoke applies only to disputes relating to the validity of a conciliation agreement, not to disputes relating to the existence of an agreement in general. The Supreme Court made this distinction at the Rent-A Centre. There, the party admitted against the arbitration that it had signed the arbitration agreement, but argued that it was not applicable because it was unacceptable. Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. to 65-66. As the Court noted, “the question of the validity of the agreement differs from the question of whether an agreement between the parties “has ever been concluded” and … we only address the first. Id. at 70 n.2. The court made the same distinction in another case which was the adjudicator`s responsibility to consider the validity of the contract, unless the challenge was the compromise clause itself.