Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc. v. Renewal by Andersen, LLC, 1:19-cv-01086

Plaintiffs Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc. and Dreamstyle Remodeling Idaho, LLC sued after defendants terminated four Retailer Agreements (Jan. 31, 2019), asserting antitrust, franchise, contract, and fraud-based claims.
Each Retailer Agreement contains a Section 27 arbitration clause requiring binding AAA commercial arbitration in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with three attorney-arbitrators and incorporation of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules.
Plaintiffs contend the agreements are void or unenforceable due to defendants’ failure to provide Franchise Rule disclosures (fraudulent inducement) and unconscionable terms; they also argue Andersen Corporation is not a signatory.
Defendants moved to stay the litigation under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arguing the AAA-rule incorporation delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator and that Andersen Corporation may invoke the agreements.
The court held the AAA-rule incorporation is clear and unmistakable evidence delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator, concluded Andersen Corporation may invoke the clauses given allegations of concerted conduct, and stayed the entire case pending arbitration, requiring six‑month status reports.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who decides arbitrability?	Agreements are void/unenforceable so court should resolve arbitrability.	Incorporation of AAA rules delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator.	Delegation clause enforced; arbitrator decides arbitrability.
Are delegation provisions specifically challenged?	Claimed unconscionability and fraudulent inducement attack the agreements as a whole.	Plaintiff did not specifically challenge the delegation clause; Rent‑A‑Ctr. requires such a specific attack.	Court enforces delegation absent a specific, timely challenge to it.
Can non‑signatory Andersen Corp invoke arbitration?	Andersen Corp is not a party and cannot compel arbitration or stay.	Complaint alleges concerted, indistinguishable conduct by all defendants; non‑signatory may invoke arbitration.	Andersen Corp may enforce the arbitration clauses and obtain a stay.
Scope of stay (non‑arbitrable claims)?	Some claims may fall outside the Retailer Agreements and should proceed.	Proper to stay litigation pending arbitration of arbitrable claims; may stay whole case.	Court stayed entire litigation (including claims arguably outside the agreements) pending arbitration.

Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (strong federal policy favoring arbitration; resolve doubts for arbitration)
Rent‑A‑Ctr., West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (delegation provisions enforceable absent specific challenge; arbitration clause severability)
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (arbitration clause severable from contract; courts generally decide only challenges to arbitration clause itself)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (party must have agreed to arbitrate before FAA applies)
AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (arbitration is a matter of consent/contract)
Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.) (incorporation of AAA rules shows clear intent to delegate arbitrability)
Dish Network L.L.C. v. Ray, 900 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir.) (incorporation of AAA rules supports arbitrability delegation)
Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.) (incorporation of AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence to delegate arbitrability)