X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Robert Mire took out two loans totaling $45,000 from Full Spectrum Lending. The loans were secured by the mortgage on Mire’s house, which was held by Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS). As part of the loan agreements, Mire agreed to arbitrate disputes connected to the loan. Mire defaulted, and MERS initiated a foreclosure action. Mire filed suit in district court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against MERS. Mire said he did not receive certain disclosures he was supposed to under the Homeownership and Equity Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. Full Spectrum and MERS filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay Mire’s suit pending arbitration. Mires argued that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable for a variety of reasons. The district court concluded that the agreements were enforceable and granted the motion to compel arbitration and staying Mire’s lawsuit. The district court further order the case to be “administratively closed,” and denied Mire’s pending motion to compel discovery as moot. Mire appeals. HOLDING:Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court says that as a preliminary matter, it must determine if it has jurisdiction over the appeal of the order compelling arbitration, staying the proceedings and administratively closing the case, as the Federal Arbitration Act does not allow an appeal to be taken from an order to stay. The court acknowledges that there is some confusion because of the district court’s order that it had “administratively closed” the proceeding. Were it not for this language, the issue would be easily disposed of, as the order compelling arbitration and the order of a stay would not be appealable. The court notes that district courts frequently make use of the “administratively closed” device as a way to remove their pending cases that are temporarily active elsewhere, such as before an arbitration panel, or stayed, such as where a bankruptcy is pending. The court finds that the effect of an administrative closure order is no different from a simple state, “except that it affects the count of active cases pending on the court’s docket.” The court finds that this case still exists on the docket of the district court and may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court’s own motion. That situation is the functional equivalent of a stay, not a dismissal, and is thus not an appealable order under the FAA. OPINION:Lynn, J.; Barksdale, Pickering and Lynn, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.