Whether the parties entered into a sufficiently definite agreement to arbitrate despite multiple discrepancies between the arbitration agreements

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Ragab v. Howard, 841 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2016), the Tenth Circuit determined that two parties did not have a meeting of the minds with respect to arbitration due to four discrepancies between six agreements. Here, the Fifth Circuit determined that two parties did have a meeting of the minds with respect to arbitration despite seven discrepancies between two agreements. In its split decision, the Fifth Circuit relied heavily on now Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Ragab v. Howard and explained the “baseline intent to arbitrate” overcame the seven conflicts. Thus, the questions presented are: 1. If a party seeking to compel arbitration provides two arbitration agreements that differ as to the number of arbitrators, the selection of arbitrators, the notice required to arbitrate, the location of the arbitration, who pays the costs of arbitration, who would be entitled to attorneys’ fees, and when arbitration need not be initiated, have the parties entered into an agreement that is sufficiently definite to enforce?; and 2. Does the reliance of the Fifth Circuit on the “baseline intent to arbitrate” elevate enforcement of purported contracts of arbitration above other contracts with multiple, material discrepancies?