Page:Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Frank Varela.pdf/7

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

4

LAMPS PLUS, INC. v. VARELA

Opinion of the Court

Section 16(a)(3) provides that an appeal may be taken from “a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title.” We construed that provision in Green Tree Financial Corp.–Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U. S. 79 (2000), a case where, as here, the District Court had issued an order both compelling arbitration and dismissing the underlying claims. We held that such an order directing “the parties to proceed to arbitration, and dismiss[ing] all the claims before [the court],… is ‘final’ within the meaning of §16(a)(3), and therefore appealable.” Id., at 89.^[1]

Varela attempts to distinguish Randolph on the ground that the appeal here was taken by the party who sought an order to dismiss the claim and compel arbitration, Lamps Plus. He claims the company “lacked standing to appeal the dismissal,” because the District Court’s order “provided precisely the relief Lamps Plus sought.” Brief for Respondent 13, 15.

—————

↑ Justice Breyer repeatedly refers to the order in this case as “interlocutory,” post, at 5–7 (dissenting opinion), but—as the language quoted above makes clear—Randolph expressly held that such an order is “final” under the FAA. Justice Breyer also claims that Randolph “explicitly reserved the [jurisdictional] question that we face now,” post, at 7, but Randolph reserved a different question. In that case, the District Court had denied a motion to stay. We noted that, if the District Court had entered a stay instead of dismissing the case, an appeal would have been barred by 9 U. S. C. §16(b)(1). That said, we expressly refrained from addressing whether the District Court should have granted the stay. See 531 U. S., at 87, n. 2. That is the question we reserved. Justice Breyer would have us take up that question today, post, at 3, 7, but there is no basis for doing so. The FAA provides that a district court “shall on application of one of the parties stay” the case pending the arbitration. 9 U. S. C. §3 (emphasis added). Here, no party sought a stay. Thus, Justice Breyer’s jurisdictional analysis is premised on two events that did not happen—a District Court ruling that was never issued denying a stay request that was never made. In short, Justice Breyer has written an opinion for a case other than the one before us.

[1] Justice Breyer repeatedly refers to the order in this case as “interlocutory,” post, at 5–7 (dissenting opinion), but—as the language quoted above makes clear—Randolph expressly held that such an order is “final” under the FAA. Justice Breyer also claims that Randolph “explicitly reserved the [jurisdictional] question that we face now,” post, at 7, but Randolph reserved a different question. In that case, the District Court had denied a motion to stay. We noted that, if the District Court had entered a stay instead of dismissing the case, an appeal would have been barred by 9 U. S. C. §16(b)(1). That said, we expressly refrained from addressing whether the District Court should have granted the stay. See 531 U. S., at 87, n. 2. That is the question we reserved. Justice Breyer would have us take up that question today, post, at 3, 7, but there is no basis for doing so. The FAA provides that a district court “shall on application of one of the parties stay” the case pending the arbitration. 9 U. S. C. §3 (emphasis added). Here, no party sought a stay. Thus, Justice Breyer’s jurisdictional analysis is premised on two events that did not happen—a District Court ruling that was never issued denying a stay request that was never made. In short, Justice Breyer has written an opinion for a case other than the one before us.

[1]