Whether the FAA preempts a conflicting state anti-SLAPP statute and precludes a state court from refusing either to compel arbitration or to stay litigation in favor of arbitration based on pending anti-SLAPP proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Texas state courts below were faced with a choice: follow the mandate of a state legislature’s “anti-SLAPP” statute or follow Congress and this Court’s directive to enforce arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Texas anti-SLAPP statute required a ruling on the motion to dismiss within 30 days of the mandated hearing under the Texas anti-SLAPP procedures, and the FAA required that the cases be stayed and referred to arbitration. Rather than refer the case to arbitration under the FAA, the trial court in Dallas, Texas, chose to dismiss the case pursuant to the state anti-SLAPP statute. Additionally, in full compliance with the parties’ arbitration agreement, Shillinglaw non-suited his claims and immediately re-filed suit in Waco, Texas, but the Waco trial court granted summary judgment based on res judicata despite Shillinglaw’s written motion to compel arbitration. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the FAA preempts a conflicting state anti-SLAPP statute and precludes a state court from refusing either to compel arbitration or to stay litigation in favor of arbitration based on pending anti-SLAPP proceedings. 2. Whether the FAA preempts a state court’s refusal to compel arbitration based on a state law doctrine of res judicata as a result of dismissal in a related case under state anti-SLAPP procedures occurring after the filing of the motion to compel arbitration.