## Facts

- North Supply Company contracted with Greater Development and Services Corporation (GDSC) to act as its agent in securing a Nigerian military telephone-equipment contract.
- The agency agreement provided that GDSC’s commission right vested upon formation of a contract between North Supply and Nigerian authorities and was unaffected by later cancellation of that contract.
- GDSC’s efforts in Nigeria helped lead to formation of a contract between North Supply and Nigerian authorities.
- The Nigerian transaction later collapsed, but the commission provision appeared to require payment despite the collapse.
- North Supply sued in federal district court seeking reformation (and related relief) to avoid or reduce its commission obligation; the agreement included an arbitration clause.
- GDSC commenced arbitration and unsuccessfully sought to stay or dismiss the court action pending arbitration.
- North Supply then moved to stay the arbitration while the reformation claim proceeded in court; the district court denied the stay.
- North Supply appealed the denial of its motion to stay arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying a motion to stay arbitration is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a “final decision.”
2. Whether such an order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as an interlocutory order involving an injunction.
3. Whether any Federal Arbitration Act-based exception permits interlocutory appellate review of an order that allows arbitration to proceed while litigation remains pending.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit dismissed North Supply’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The court held the order denying a stay of arbitration was not a final decision under § 1291.
- The court held the order was not appealable as an injunction-type order under § 1292(a)(1).
- The court declined to treat the order as immediately appealable under the Federal Arbitration Act where it did not end the litigation or conclusively determine the parties’ rights.
- A dissent would have permitted interlocutory review on the view that the order effectively compelled arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate jurisdiction under § 1291 generally requires a final district court decision that ends the case on the merits.
- An order that merely permits arbitration to continue while court litigation remains pending is ordinarily interlocutory and nonappealable.
- § 1292(a)(1) is construed narrowly; not every procedural order affecting arbitration qualifies as an appealable injunction.
- Interlocutory appeals in arbitration-related disputes are disfavored where they would generate piecemeal review and delay arbitral proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a district court’s denial of a motion to stay ongoing arbitration is not immediately appealable, and it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the arbitration and the district court litigation to proceed.


North Supply Co. v. Greater Dev. & Servs. Corp., 728 F.2d 363 (6th Cir. 1984)