Whether the district court erred and exceeded its authority under the FAA and OUAA by refusing to compel arbitration (finding waiver and non-signatory) as mandated under the employment contract (previously adjudicated by the New Jersey State Court which compelled arbitration of post-employment retaliation claims against non-signatory petitioner)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Ninth Circuit’s and district court’s decisions to not compel arbitration in this case signals a clear intention to ignore the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Oregon Uniform Arbitration Act (OUAA) and applicable state law to bypass decisions reserved for the arbitrator. App.2a-10a. The question of whether respondent’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration was resolved during the first lawsuit respondent filed against petitioner in New Jersey State Court in 2004. App.159a. Respondent referenced the same employment agreement with NDT in his complaint in this case as he did in 2004. The parties are the same. In 2006, petitioner prevailed (App.166a) on a Motion to Compel arbitration (App.143a-158a) on respondent’s wrongful termination and postemployment retaliation claims against NDT and non-signatory Timothy Rote. Zweizig subsequently prevailed on a post-employment retaliation claim in the 2011 arbitration that followed. App.172a-173a. The U.S. District Court of Oregon confirmed the award and ruling of the New Jersey Court in 2011 finding that the post-employment retaliation claims were subject to arbitration, referencing both the FAA and OUAA. App.186a-187a. Petitioner filed his Answer and Affirmative Defenses which timely raised issue and claim preclusion implicating these prior rulings that mandate arbitration. App.49a-58a. Petitioner filed timely Motions to Dismiss and Compel.App.70a.The lower courts refused to compel arbitration in this case as demanded by Petitioner, on a finding of inapplicability to non-signatory petitioner, questioning the : s ii application to post-employment retaliation and on the basis of waiver because petitioner responded to an anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike brought by Respondent. Under Oregon Law, non-signatory, estoppel and waiver are issues for the arbitrator to decide. The Ninth’s and district court’s ignoring an adjudicated and confirmed decision on the construction and meaning of the employment agreement, in its application to post-employment retaliation and to non-signatories, represents a return to the old judicial hostility to arbitration and a significant departure from this Court’s repeated guidance that arbitration agreements are to be enforced as any other contracts and that any doubts regarding arbitrability must be resolved in favor of arbitration. E.g., Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S.1, 24-25 (1983). See also the Court confirming that a non-signatory may compel ; arbitration in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009). ; Petitioner wrote a blog critical of the tangible and intangible costs of litigation, an arbitrator and arbitration involving then respondent Zweizig, which by the time of trial was 96 Chapters and approximately 96,000 words in length. Only 1% of the content involved the outline of evidence and criminal conduct of the respondent. The first chapter of that blog was published in 2015. Petitioner also wrote a blog in 2014 on his litigation between NDT and Silicon Valley Bank, which oe grew to 60 Chapters and 60,000 words. In response to some of the 2015 blog content on arbitration, respondent filed suit under ORS 659A.030 (1) (f) alleging retaliation against dissolved corporate former employer Northwest Direct (NDT) and under ORS 659A.030 (1) (g) against iii Petitioner for aiding and abetting. The content of the blog to which the respondent ascribes retaliation was published by petitioner after NDT ‘administratively dissolved. The respondent’s claims are against a fictional retaliator and therefore both structurally flawed and unconstitutional as applied. Petitioner has a Right of Free Speech that the district court seeks to abridge, again as applied. Respondent waived offers of anonymity and redaction of his identity. Petitioner carried out redaction anyway. During trial respondent voluntarily testified that he took issue with the totality of the blog for violating what he perceived to be a confidentia