Sardagna
Southern California, Arizona, Colorado, & Southern Nevada Glaziers Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Pension Trust v. Sardagna
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Peter Sardagna appeals the district court’s order of October 22, 1999, denying his motion to refer the case to a pending arbitration proceeding and granting Appellee Glaziers Trust’s motion to consolidate the parties and claims from the pending arbitration in the instant action. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not set them out in detail. This court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s order under 9 U.S.C. § 16 , and we affirm.
Appellants challenge the district court’s application of § 1281.2(c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the district court should have resolved its motion under the Federal Arbitration Act. We disagree.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, contracting parties “are generally free to structure their arbitration agreements as they see fit” and may specify “the rules under which [the] arbitration will be conducted.” Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989). Here, the parties’ arbitration agreement provides *756 that “all questions in respect to procedure ... and the…