Whether the FAA preempts state law contract statutes and regulations by singling out for disfavored treatment arbitration agreements entered into between California health care providers and an agent who is appointed under a power of attorney to make 'health care decisions' (advance directive) and enter into contracts for those services on behalf of the principal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires State Legislatures and the courts to place arbitration agreements “on equal footing with all other contracts.” Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246, 248 (2017) (Kindred); see 9 U.S.C. § 2. Kindred held that an agent acting under a power of attorney was empowered to agree to arbitrate disputes with a nursing home arising out of the care provided to the principal. Kentucky’s “clear-statement rule,” which required the nursing home patient to explicitly grant the agent authority to so agree, violated the FAA by singling out arbitration for disfavored treatment. Jd. at 248, 251-52. In its decision below, the California Supreme Court likewise declined to enforce an arbitration agreement signed by an agent appointed by his uncle under an advance directive to make “health care decisions,” which included the incapacitated patient’s admission to a nursing care facility. California’s highest court reasoned that because the Legislature expressly prohibited any agreements to arbitrate from being included within the nursing home’s standard admission contract, a “standalone” arbitration agreement regarding the medical provider’s services signed by the power of attorney at the same time was invalid absent a clear statement of his or her authority. This interpretation gives rise to the following issues: 1. Whether the FAA preempts state law contract statutes and regulations by singling out for disfavored treatment arbitration agreements entered into between California health care u providers and an agent who is appointed under a power of attorney to make “health care decisions” (advance directive) and enter into contracts for those services on behalf of the principal. 2. Whether the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law contract statutes and regulations for services offered by health care providers imposes a “clear-statement rule” that unduly impairs the agent’s authority to agree to arbitrate disputes while acting under such an advance directive in conflict with the FAA and this Court’s precedent. RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner Country Oaks Partners, LLC is owned by David Johnson, Thomas Chambers, Eli Marmur, and Frank Johnson, each of whom possess an ownership interest of 10 percent or more. Petitioner Sun Mar Management is owned by Eli Marmur and Frank Johnson, each of whom possess an ownership interest of 10 percent or more. The above-listed persons or entities (corporations, partnerships, firms, or any other association, but not including government entities or their agencies) have either (1) an ownership interest of 10 percent or more in the part if it is an entity; or (2) a financial or other interest in the outcome of the proceeding that the justices should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves. Petitioners’ counsel certifies that they are not currently aware of any other entities or persons required to be listed under Rule 29.6.