Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state Supersedeas law

Question Presented The trial court, WA State Court of Appeals, and WA State Supreme Court have attempted to invalidate the parties’ arbitration agreement with state law, in whole, even though both parties agreed to arbitrate our disputes. King County Board of Health Chairman, Joe McDermott, declared racism a public health crisis. In a statement, King County Executive Dow Constantine committed the County and its public health authority to implementing a racially equitable response to racism, centering on community. He went on to acknowledge the County’s past and present complicity “in maintaining and perpetuating structural racism,” and said that “as an institution we must be a vital player in dismantling oppressive systems that are grounded in White supremacy.” “Washington State Court of Appeals, Washington State Supreme Court and the King County Superior Court have refused to rule on the Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Congress adopted the [Federal] Arbitration Act in 1925” because “courts were unduly hostile to arbitration.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018). Sn ST Pee Many years later, “judicial antagonism toward arbitration” continues to “manifest /] itself in a great variety of devices and formulas.” Id. At 1623 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.” Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219-220 (1985) The United States Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, Justice Kagan writing for the majority, reiterated that “the FAA preempts any state law that discriminates against arbitration on its face,” and also held that the “FAA preempts any [state] rule that covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that (oh so coincidentally) have the defining features of arbitration agreements”. Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark, 2017 U.S. Lexis 2948. “{P]re-emption doctrine is derived” from the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the “supreme Law of the Land.” Whether a particular federal statute preempts a particular state law, thus rendering the state law unenforceable, depends on the congressional intent. The Supreme Court held Southland Corp. v. Keating that section 2 applies in the state court and preempts conflicting state laws. TE The Petitioner, Ms. Smith, Pro Se, was employed by the Respondents, SyHadley, LLC., (also Legacy Partners Residential, Inc., and Legacy Partners, LLC). Ms. Smith was provided an apartment, as part of her salary. Ms. Smith is a hate crime survivor. Both parties signed a binding arbitration agreement. Ms. Smith requested arbitration on September 16, 2019. To date there has not been any arbitration whatsoever. Ms. Smith filed a timely Motion to Compel Arbitration, on November 20, 2019, in trial court. To date the trial court has refused to rule on the motion. It is still sitting in trial court without a decision. Ms. Smith filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Court of Appeals on January 3, 2020, months after appealing the trial court’s decision granting the Respondent’s Unlawful Detainer. The Court of Appeals then ordered the Respondents to get a ruling from the trial court on a Supersedeas Bond. Still no ruling on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. , The rationale of the decision indicates the court’s desire to enforce conflicting state laws. It singles out arbitration agreements for different treatment than other contracts. The Respondents, the Trial Court, the Court of Appeals and Washington State Supreme Court have so far successfully upheld Ms. Smith’s contract lease agreement and the state’s “at-will” employment in the unlawful detainer. San TTT? The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state Supersedeas law? Does this state law conflict with the FAA? 2. Whether the Federal Arbitration