i told everyone this judge has no clue of what was before her.
While I disagree with the ruling, and agree the Judge failed to make findings or address apparent core issues before her - the posts here which consider the Batts ruling incomprehensible miss the mark IMHO. Compelling arbitration and staying or ending litigation for that reason is routine and common, and arbitration is highly favored.
Without question, there are facts that could make the general rule - that the arbitration process determines what has been agreed to be arbitrated - apparently or possibly inapplicable,
like, there is no arbitration pending or demanded,
like, the issue was raised, ruled on and the time for appealing that ruling has expired,
like, the prior case pending rule,
like, waiver by litigation,
like facial invalidity based on explicit contract terms excepting FDD, etc.,
however, Batts applied the general rule which is meant to be applied broadly in favor of encouraging arbitration.
Having the order entered is not proof in my eyes of a significant legal setback, nor does it suggest IDCC's lawyers were not diligent. It is difficult for me to say that a broad brush approach that applies a well known general rule is a bizarre ruling, even if it appears on close examination to be quite problematic.
Hopefully, we are getting that close examination right now.
JMHO
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
