Whether the doctrine of preclusion overrides equitable estoppel in enforcing arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

After this Court refused to intervene and review the jurisdictional defects in the lower court's judgment in favor of Respondent and denial of constitutional protection for an alien (See Docket in Case No. 22-1032, 2022 October Session), Petitioner compelled Respondent in state court to arbitrate issues related to breach of the arbitration agreement, bad faith, consumer protection laws, and other tortious and contractual claims. The state trial court judge and state appellate justices denied enforcement of Petitioner's statutory right to arbitration against Respondent, citing issue preclusion and disregarding equitable estoppel, as well as constitutional and statutory mandates ("It is unfair for a signatory to an [arbitration] agreement to avoid arbitration by suing nonsignatories for claims that are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable from arbitrable claims deriving from the agreement," (Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 111, slip op. at 23). A litigant who was not a party to the arbitration agreement may nonetheless invoke its enforcement under state contract law (Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009)). These procedural loopholes and the outcomes of the