This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Textile (P) and BMH (D) did business on 38 separate transactions. Each transaction contained an order acknowledgment and invoice from D that contained a mandatory arbitration clause with venue to be in Georgia. The clauses required P to respond in 24 hours if it did not agree. P never responded, and eventually, it got a shipment that it refused to pay for alleging that the yarn was defective. D submitted the matter to arbitration. P did not object at first but then protested, contending that the arbitration clause had not been part of their contract. P then filed an action in District Court in California. P then moved for a stay of arbitration, and the court enjoined both the pending arbitration and any further action regarding arbitration for the dispute. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.