Rosanne L. Woodroof v. Joseph F. Cunningham, et al.

Question 1: Is it a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act for a state court to dismiss an arbitration due to the res­ ignation of an arbitrator so that a pending motion to invoke an FAA Section 5 replacement arbitrator can be denied or rendered "moot”? Section 5 of the FAA requires the trial court to ap­ point an arbitrator if there is a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator “for any reason.” This section creates a more efficient arbitration process by minimizing de­ lays and mechanical breakdowns in replacing arbitra­ tors who have died or resigned for any reason. However, it is subject to the parties’ contract, which should be rigorously enforced according to its terms. (Section 2) Therein lies the tension between expedi­ tious arbitrator replacement to continue the arbitra­ tion and terms which stipulate forums or arbitrators “integral” to the contract which may be unavailable, thus voiding the contract. The circuits are split on favoring the intent to ar­ bitrate over the integral term exception, which may void the contract where a specific arbitration forum or arbitrator deemed “integral” is not available. In this case, the DC Court of Appeals implicitly created an­ other circuit split inconsistent with the goals of the FAA, dismissing Petitioner’s arbitration contract and also her case where an arbitrator who was not integral to the contract resigned. This decision upends the