Accenture LLP v. Spreng, 647 F.3d 72

Accenture bought Spreng’s preexisting companies Advantium and XPAN in 2006, and engaged Spreng under Asset Purchase/Framework and Employment agreements containing arbitration clauses.
Spreng’s companies had revenue targets; Accenture agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to include Spreng’s products in its offerings, but could affect his income.
By November 2008 Spreng’s targets were missed, triggering no bonus, and Accenture notified termination of Spreng’s employment as of March 31, 2009.
Spreng filed a June 2009 arbitration asserting wrongful termination and breach of contract for not paying a bonus; mediation and prolonged settlement followed before arbitration.
In October 2010 Spreng sought to amend to include fraud claims; the arbitrator denied amendment (the October Order).
On October 14, 2010 Spreng filed a second arbitration demand; Accenture contested that withdrawal from the first arbitration barred a second arbitration and sought district court relief, which the district court denied; proceedings then were stayed pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper under FAA §16(b)(4).	Accenture seeks review of a district court order refusing to enjoin arbitration.	Spreng maintains the district court order implicates FAA review rights.	We lack jurisdiction under §16(b)(4).
Whether FAA §16(a)(3) provides appellate jurisdiction where the district court’s order was non-final.	Accenture argues the order is a final decision with respect to arbitration.	Spreng contends the order is not final because proceedings continued.	We lack jurisdiction under §16(a)(3) because the district court’s decision was not final.
Whether Accenture’s merits-based claims are reviewable on appeal.	Accenture seeks review of waiver and October Order as final reviewable issues.	Defendant argues there is no final, reviewable order on those grounds.	Merits-based review is unavailable absent a central appealable claim; October Order is not an award.

Cap Gemini Ernst & Young v. Nackel, 346 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2003) (require an official dismissal before reviewing an order to compel arbitration)
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2000) (finality for §16(a)(3) review hinges on dismissal or stay framework)
Oleochemicals, Inc. v. Salim Oleochemicals, 278 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2002) (precedent on finality and appealability of stay orders)
Spray v. CPR, 187 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 1999) (older finality rule abrogated by Green Tree)
ConArt, Inc. v. Hellmuth, 504 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007) (§16(b)(4) limits 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1) jurisdiction over non-enjoining orders)