Sunbridge Retirement Care Associates LLC v. Smith, 326 Ga. App. 550

Sunbridge sought interlocutory review of the trial court's denial to stay proceedings and compel arbitration under FAA.
Arbitration agreement signed November 24, 2009 by Smith as agent for Emma Wingo, relating to Wingo's admission to Cartersville Heights Care Center.
Agreement required disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration and referenced the NAF Code of Procedure; parties opted out of certain NAF rules but not application of the Code.
NAF faced a 2009 consent order by Minnesota authorities prohibiting administration of consumer arbitration, affecting NAF availability.
Wingo died after ~11 months; Smith and others sued Sunbridge in 2011 for medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death; Sunbridge moved to stay and compel arbitration.
Trial court denied the motion; appellate review followed to determine if FAA §5 applies given NAF unavailability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FAA applicability when designated arbitral forum is unavailable	Sunbridge argues §5 allows substitution when the forum is unavailable.	Smith contends the forum designation is integral; §5 cannot substitute; arbitration impossible.	Arbitration impossible to enforce; §5 does not apply.
Impossibility due to NAF Code/cancellation	NAF cancellation renders arbitration impossible under the agreement.	Agreement could be reformed to continue arbitration with substitute procedures, if allowed.	Agreement deemed impossible to perform; litigation affirmed without addressing other errors.

Miller v. GGNSC Atlanta, 323 Ga.App. 114 (Ga. App. 2013) (integral term vs ancillary logistical concern test for FAA forum availability)
Brown v. ITT Consumer Financial Corp., 211 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2000) ((II)(A)(3)(11th Cir. 2000) framework for forum designation relevance)
Cash In Advance of Florida, Inc. v. Jolley, 272 Ga. App. 282 (Ga. App. 2005) (FAA §5 applicability when arbitration forum is unavailable)