American General Financial Services v. Jape
291 Ga. 637
| Ga. | 2012Background
- American General filed suit against Jape on a loan with an arbitration clause; FAA applies to arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce.
- Jape counterclaimed for breach of contract; American General moved under FAA § 4 to compel arbitration of the counterclaim; trial court denied.
- Trial court denied reconsideration and a certificate of immediate review; American General sought direct appeal under FAA § 16(a)(1)(B) and OCGA § 5-6-34(b).
- Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal for failure to comply with OCGA § 5-6-34(b); this Court granted certiorari to resolve preemption questions.
- Court held FAA § 16(a)(1)(B) is not preemptive of OCGA § 5-6-34(b); procedural Georgia rule governs interlocutory review and does not undermine FAA objectives.
- Conclusion: American General not entitled to direct appeal; Court of Appeals’ dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FAA §16(a)(1)(B) preempt OCGA §5-6-34(b)? | American General argues direct appeal is mandated by FAA. | Jape contends Georgia interlocutory procedures apply. | Not preempted; procedural rule remains applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987) ( FAA applicability to arbitration contracts involving interstate commerce)
- Volt Information Sciences v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (preemption scope and arbitration procedures)
- Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) (FAA does not federally prescribe state procedures)
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (FAA overruled judiciary’s refusal to enforce arbitration agreements)
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 514 U.S. 52 (1995) (FAA enforces arbitration agreements notwithstanding state contract exclusions)
- Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008) (administrative initial jurisdiction preemption considerations)
- Nippert v. City of Richmond, 327 U.S. 416 (1946) (burdens on commerce; not all are forbidden)
- Doctor’s Assocs. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (state rule not affecting arbitration enforcement; Volt reference)
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Terminix International Co., 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (state may regulate contracts under general principles; FAA prohibits discrimination against arbitration)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (state law prohibiting arbitration of class actions preempted; FAA preemption of certain state rules)