Does such a contract obtained in this manner sustain a determination of a 'free and fair' formation on grounds equitable to both parties under the Federal Arbitration Act

Questions Presented For Review In 2002, the San Diego Unified Port District ended the long-standing practice of “free anchorage” in San Diego bay. Using its police authority, the Port District mandated that all vessels must move to take up berthing at a Port facility, in this case of a private vessel, either a marina or mooring ground. Failure to do so would result in civil and criminal penalties. Such mandate forces a contract between the Port District through its concessionaires and the owner of the vessel. The contract at issue contains a provision providing for arbitration in the case of disputes. I. Does such a contract obtained in this manner sustain a determination of a “free and fair” formation on grounds equitable to both parties under the Federal Arbitration Act. Il. Does this contract sustain an interpretation as a maritime contract necessary for the district : court's jurisdiction pursuant to 46 USC §31301, et seq. III. Does this contract sustain an interpretation as one of interstate commerce necessary for the jurisdiction of the Federal Arbitration Act. i Related Cases e Heston v. G.B. Capital Holding, LLC., No. 16-cv-912, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judgment entered August 24, 2016. e Heston v. G.B. Capital Holdings, LLC. No. 18-55125, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered on August 21, 2018. ii