Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that doctrine of contra proferentem applied to the question of whether plaintiff had standing to demand arbitration, but “the presumption in favor of arbitration applies to the resolution of scope questions”
• holding that the presumption of arbitrability is applied to scope questions that arise “when the parties have a contract that provides for arbitration of some issues and it is unclear whether a specific dispute falls within that contract” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that the presumption of arbitrability is applied to scope questions that arise \when the parties have a contract that provides for arbitration of some issues and it is unclear whether a specific dispute falls within that contract\
• explaining that the issue of a party’s standing to compel arbitration is not a scope question
• rejecting \attempts to invoke the federal - 35 - policy favoring arbitration\ because \[t]hat policy simply cannot be used to paper over a deficiency in Article III standing\
• affirming denial of petition to compel arbitration on basis of lack of standing where petitioner had “secured a dismissal with prejudice [and] face[d] no realistic risk of significant harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).