Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 132 S. Ct. 23 (2011)
KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 132 S. Ct. 23 (2011)
____ (2011)
Per Curiam
PER CURIAM.
Agreements to arbitrate that fall within the scope and
coverage of the Federal Arbitration Act (Act), 9 U. S. C. 1
et seq., must be enforced in state and federal courts. State
courts, then, have a prominent role to play as enforcers
of agreements to arbitrate. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556
U. S. 49, 59 (2009).
The Act has been interpreted to require that if a dispute
presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not,
the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will
lead to piecemeal litigation. See Dean Witter Reynolds
Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 217 (1985). From this it follows that state and federal courts must examine with care
the complaints seeking to invoke their jurisdiction in order
to separate arbitrable from nonarbitrable claims. A court
may not issue a blanket refusal to compel arbitration
merely on the grounds that some of the claims could be
resolved by the court without arbitration. See ibid.
In this case the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the
State of Florida upheld a trial courts refusal to compel
arbitration of respondents claims after determining that
two of the four claims in a complaint were nonarbitrable.
Though the matter is not altogether free from doubt, a fair
reading of the opinion indicates a likelihood that the Court
of Appeal failed to determine whether the other two claims
in the complaint were arbitrable. For this reason, the
judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case
remanded for further proceedings.
*
*
*
Per Curiam
Per Curiam
remand, the Court of Appeal should examine the remaining two claims to determine whether either requires
arbitration.
It is so ordered.