Kilgore v. Mullenax, 520 S.W.3d 670

Kilgore and Mullenax were partners in Arkansas company Senior Dental Care, LLC; Kilgore left in 2013 and signed a settlement containing a noncompete, nondisparagement clause, and an agreement to arbitrate under AAA rules.
Kilgore later bought interest in a Tennessee competitor; Mullenax initiated arbitration to enforce the noncompete; Kilgore filed a report with the Arkansas Insurance Department accusing Mullenax of a kickback scheme.
The arbitrator (under AAA Rule 7) found the FAA governed the arbitration, concluded Kilgore breached the nondisparagement clause (motivated by self-interest), awarded $7,000 for that report plus $136,000 in fees/expenses; no damages were awarded on the noncompete violation.
Mullenax petitioned to confirm the award in circuit court; Kilgore cross-petitioned to vacate, arguing (1) lack of arbitrator/federal jurisdiction and (2) that Arkansas public-policy whistleblower statutes immunized his report.
The circuit court confirmed the award; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the confirmation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kilgore)	Defendant's Argument (Mullenax)	Held
Whether FAA applies	Settlement involved only Arkansas stock transfer; not interstate commerce	Arbitrator found businesses crossed state lines, used interstate supplies, processed federal Medicare/Medicaid — FAA governs	FAA applies; arbitrator’s jurisdictional finding conclusive under AAA rules
Whether award should be vacated on Arkansas public-policy grounds (whistleblower immunity)	State statutes bar causes of action arising from reports to Insurance Department; arbitration award enforcing liability conflicts with that public policy	FAA supplies exclusive, limited grounds for vacatur; public-policy argument is not one of §10 grounds	Vacatur denied; court must confirm award absent one of FAA’s §10 grounds; state public-policy cannot supply an additional FAA vacatur ground

Hart v. McChristian, 344 Ark. 656 (Ark. 2001) (deferential review of arbitrator’s jurisdiction and endorsement of arbitration policy)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248 (Ark. 1986) (court shall confirm arbitration award absent grounds to vacate)
Gruma Corp. v. Morrison, 362 S.W.3d 898 (Ark. 2010) (FAA applies where transaction involves interstate commerce)
Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2003) (Commerce Clause can support FAA application even absent specific interstate effect)
Hall St. Assocs. L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (FAA provides exclusive statutory grounds for vacatur/modification)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (state rules disfavoring arbitration are preempted by the FAA)
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (U.S. 2008) (FAA preempts state laws that interfere with arbitration agreements)
St. John’s Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Delfino, 414 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005) (exceedingly limited, deferential federal review of arbitration awards)
Med. Shoppe Int’l, Inc. v. Turner Invs., Inc., 614 F.3d 485 (8th Cir. 2010) (claims that arbitrator disregarded law are not cognizable under §10)
Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 660 F.3d 281 (7th Cir. 2011) (public-policy challenges are not among FAA §10 vacatur grounds)