Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., fka T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.

As also presented in the nearly identical petition currently pending before this Court in the matter of IQ Products, Co. v. WD-40, Co. (No. 17- 986), this matter revolves around the determination of arbitrability of claims. The bias in favor of arbitration increasingly causes courts to overlook the underlying intent of the parties while also rendering the civil jury trial an endangered species. More specifically, federal courts of appeals have held that the mere incorporation in contracts of certain common rules of self-interested private arbitration companies evinces a “clear and unmistakable” intent that arbitrators should decide the “gateway” issue of whether a particular dispute is covered by an agreement to arbitrate. At the same time, often the dispute at issue has nothing to do with the contract containing the arbitration clause and should never involve the arbitral process. To avoid compelling arbitration of every dispute — no matter how far removed from the subject matter of such a contract — four circuit courts have adopted some version of the “wholly groundless” test, while two other circuits have rejected it. The questions presented here are: 1. Whether a court must grant a motion to compel arbitration of the gateway question of arbitrability, even where a contract containing an arbitration clause is unrelated to the parties’ instant