Did the appellate court err by ignoring Henry Schein-Inc-et-al-v-Archer-&-White-Sales-Inc-139-S-Ct-524-US-Jan-8-2019-and-barring-arbitration

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the appellate court err by ignoring Henry Schein, Inc., et al. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (US. Jan. 8, 2019) and barring arbitration based on its perceived view of the merits of Petitioner’s claim as opposed to the actual arbitrability of the claim? Suggested Answer: Yes. 2. By barring arbitration in this matter, did the appellate court ignore longstanding case law of this Court holding that (i) claims are arbitrable where they touch matters covered by the parties’ arbitration agreement; and (ii) any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration? Suggested Answer: Yes. 3. Did the appellate court err by requiring that “material events” underlying Petitioner’s claim occur while Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) still was a member of the NASD as a condition of compelling arbitration, rather than simply enforcing the parties’ clear and unmistakable arbitration agreement? Suggested Answer: Yes. 4. Did the appellate court proceed to ignore that “material events” giving rise to the claim did in fact arise while MetLife still was a member of the NASD? Suggested Answer. Yes. i 5. Did the appellate court err by not permitting the arbitrators to rule on arbitrability where the parties’ arbitration agreement evidenced a clear and unmistakable intent by the parties that they do so? Suggested Answer: Yes. PARTIES As set forth in the case caption, the petitioner is John Buesek (“Mr. Bucsek”), who was the defendant in the trial court proceeding and the appellant in the appellate court proceedings, and the respondent is MetLife, which was the plaintiff in the trial court proceeding and the appellee in the appellate proceedings. w RELATED CASES There are no cases or proceedings relating to the current matter at hand in this or any other court.