10/08/2026
Does your arbitration agreement contain a clause delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator? Our appeal to the Fourth Circuit could decide whether it encompasses non-signatories.
In Commonwealth of Virginia v. Waller, DarrowEverett LLP asks the court to resolve a circuit split: When an arbitration agreement has a delegation clause, who decides if it governs non-signatories, the court or the arbitrator?
We argue it must be the arbitrator.
Led by Partner Ashwini Jayaratnam, our brief argues:
โ๏ธ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. It decided arbitrability and then used that answer to hold that it, not the arbitrator, should decide arbitrability.
โ๏ธ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐. The agreements incorporate the AAA Rules, the equivalent of a delegation clause in the Fourth Circuit. The Commonwealth failed to challenge it: under Supreme Court precedent Rent-A-Center and Henry Schein, an unchallenged delegation clause must be enforced.
โ๏ธ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐, ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. A valid contract exists, so the scope question belongs to the arbitrator.
โ๏ธ ๐
๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ข๐ซ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐๐. Isernia, Rogers, and Sessoms conflict with Supreme Court precedent and with the approach of the Second, Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits.
The Supreme Court is considering the same question. A cert petition from the Ninth Circuit, Olson v. FCA US, LLC (No. 26-228), is set for conference on Oct. 9.
The outcome will shape the jurisdictional reach of courts versus arbitrators over the threshold question of non-signatory arbitrability.
We are proud to be advancing an issue of national importance to arbitration law.