Timothy C. Rote v. Max Zweizig

The Ninth Circuit’s and district court’s decisions to not compel arbitration in this case signals a clear intention to ignore the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Oregon Uniform Arbitration Act (OUAA) and applicable state law to bypass decisions reserved for the arbitrator. App.2a-10a. The question of whether respondent’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration was resolved during the first lawsuit respondent filed against petitioner in New Jersey State Court in 2004. App.l59a. Respondent referenced the same employment agreement with NDT in his complaint in this case as he did in 2004. The parties are the same. In 2006, petitioner prevailed (App.l66a) on a Motion to Compel arbitration (App. 143a- 158a) on respondent’s wrongful termination and post­ employment retaliation claims against NDT and non-signatory Timothy Rote. Zweizig subsequently prevailed on a post-employment retaliation claim in the 2011 arbitration that followed. App. 172a-173a. The U.S. District Court of Oregon confirmed the award and ruling of the New Jersey Court in 2011 finding that the post-employment retaliation claims were subject to arbitration, referencing both the FAA and OUAA. App. 186a-187a. Petitioner filed his Answer and Affirmative Defenses which timely raised issue and claim preclusion implicating these prior rulings that mandate arbitration. App.49a-58a. Petitioner filed timely Motions to Dismiss and Compel.App.70a.The lower courts refused to compel arbitration in this case as demanded by Petitioner, on a finding of inapplicability to non-signatory petitioner, questioning the