Client Alerts & Insights
Know Your Arbitration Clause: What Remains of State Arbitration Statutes under the Ever-Growing FAA
October 11, 2024
Authored By:
Arbitration is a prevalent method for dispute resolution, and most contracts include an arbitration clause. A recent Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals decision emphasizes the importance of careful drafting and picking the appropriate arbitration regime.
In Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Gloria Beard, et al., 2024-Ohio-4799, the parties had a sales contract that contained an arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Parma Municipal Court stayed the case and compelled arbitration. Appellants challenged the judgment of the Parma Municipal Court, relying on R.C. 27022.02(C) which makes the grant of a stay pending arbitration a final appealable order.
The Court of Appeals, however, denied the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because (unlike an order denying arbitration) an order compelling arbitration and staying a case is not an appealable order under the FAA. In doing so, the Court of Appeals determined that the FAA preempted Ohio state law because the parties’ arbitration agreement specified that it was governed by the FAA and not by any state arbitration law.
The outcome would have been the same even if the contract had not specified the FAA at all. For purposes of compelling arbitration, a clause that does not specify an arbitration statute is governed by the FAA, and not by state arbitration law. This is true even if the contract generally specifies the substantive law of a specific state. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 60 (1995) (holding that absent a clear statement about arbitrability law, a choice-of-law clause governs only the parties’ “substantive rights and obligations,” not the “allocation of power between alternative tribunals”); see, e.g., Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Mar., LLC, 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011) (under Mastrobuono, “courts should apply federal arbitrability law absent ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ that the parties agreed to apply nonfederal arbitrability law.”).
The Gloria Beard ruling highlights the importance of specifying which body of rules will govern your arbitration. Not only will this decision impact how the arbitration will proceed, but it also impacts the appealability of an order compelling arbitration.
Benesch continues to monitor arbitration trends so that our clients can be aware of new developments and best practices.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Litigation Practice Group.
Laura E. Kogan at lkogan@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4518.
Jim von der Heydt at jvonderheydt@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4160.
Caroline Hamilton at chamilton@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6114.
Latest News
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.