§658A-7 Motion to compel or stay arbitration. (a) On motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement:

(1) If the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate; and

(2) If the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

(b) On motion of a person alleging that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is no agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. If the court finds that there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate.

(c) If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement, it shall not, pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), order the parties to arbitrate.

(d) The court shall not refuse to order arbitration because the claim subject to arbitration lacks merit or grounds for the claim have not been established.

(e) If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in court, a motion under this section shall be made in that court. Otherwise a motion under this section shall be made in any court as provided in section 658A-27.

(f) If a party makes a motion to the court to order arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until the court renders a final decision under this section.

(g) If the court orders arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may limit the stay to that claim. [L 2001, c 265, pt of §1]

Case Notes

Cited, where the court found that third-party defendant, assignee and nonsignatory to a lease containing a valid arbitration clause, could move to compel arbitration of additional rent due. 515 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (2007).

Although public workers' union was not engaged in arbitration proceedings at the time of the other public union's motion to compel consolidated arbitration pursuant to this section, as the core purpose of the other public union's motion was to compel arbitration, appeals court had jurisdiction under §658A-28 over other public union's appeal from order denying motion for consolidated arbitration. 124 H. 372 (App.), 244 P.3d 609 (2010).

Where public workers' union and the State had a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes that arose between the State and the union workers, but the agreement did not contemplate arbitration for disputes with the other public union, a nonsignatory to the agreement, circuit court did not err in refusing to compel tripartite arbitration. 124 H. 372 (App.), 244 P.3d 609 (2010).

Upon a disputed motion to compel arbitration, where there are genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of an arbitration agreement, a trial court must resolve those issues through an evidentiary hearing; at minimum, where live witness testimony or cross examination of affiants would meaningfully promote resolution of factual disputes, such evidence should be received, as disputed factual issues cannot be resolved on the basis of an under-developed record. 130 H. 517 (App.), 312 P.3d 1224 (2013).