Petition to compel or stay arbitration
Source:
Section 36.625 — Petition to compel or stay arbitration, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors036.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 36.310)
Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce arbitration agreements arising out of public-sector labor relations pursuant to ORS 243.672 and 243.676. Smith v. State of Oregon, 31 Or App 15, 569 P2d 677 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Order entered directing parties to proceed with arbitration was not final order subject to appeal under [former] ORS 19.010. Peter Kiewit v. Port of Portland, 291 Or 49, 628 P2d 720 (1981)
When a party seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not required to comply with defendant’s demand to arbitrate a dispute pursuant to their contract, the court may consider only those defenses to arbitration which it could have considered had the party seeking arbitration filed a petition to compel arbitration. Union County School District No. 1 v. Valley Inland Pacific Constructors, Inc., 59 Or App 602, 652 P2d 349 (1982)
Where insurer and insured disagreed about amount of damages insured should recover and insured petitioned for order compelling arbitration without first making written demand for arbitration pursuant to terms of insurance policy, parties’ disagreement does not qualify as “failure, neglect or refusal...to perform.” Moresi v. Nationwide Mutual, 309 Or 619, 789 P2d 667 (1990)
Where party is able to proceed ex parte under agreed arbitration procedure, party is not “aggrieved” by failure, neglect or refusal of other party. Shannon v. Swyers, 129 Or App 573, 879 P2d 1339 (1994)
In general
Duty of court to act “summarily” means court must decide issue of arbitrability expeditiously and without jury trial. Greene v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 228 Or App 379, 209 P3d 333 (2009), Sup Ct review denied
Authority of court under ORCP 32C to make determination regarding class certification conditional is consistent with court duty to determine arbitrability issue “summarily”. Greene v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 228 Or App 379, 209 P3d 333 (2009), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date