Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 1 et seq.); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson; Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.; Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela; Whether the arbitration agreement gave the arbitrator authority to rule on the issue of arbitrability; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan; West WA Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Ferrellgas, Inc. (WA App.); Incorporation of the American Arbitration Association National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes (AAA Rules); Preston v. Ferrer; C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of OK; McGee v. Armstrong; In re: Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig.; Cornett v. Cmco Mtg., LLC (ED KY); Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc. (1st Cir.); Contec Corp. v. Remote Solutions Co. (2d Cir.); Richardson v. Coverall N. Am., Inc. (3d Cir.); Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T- Mobile US, Inc. (4th Cir.); Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott Petrol. Operations Co. (5th Cir.); Fallo v. High-Tech Inst. (8th Cir.); Brennan v. Opus Bank (9th Cir.); Dish Network L.L.C. v. Ray (10th Cir.); Terminix Int’l Co., LP v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. P’ship (11th Cir.); Qualcomm Inc. v. Nokia Corp. (Fed. Cir.); Chevron Corp. v. Ecuador (DC Cir.); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp. (7th Cir.); “Including”; Burgess v. United States; Whether the district court denied a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint; D.E.&J. Ltd. P’ship v. Conaway (Unpub. 6th Cir.); PR Diamonds, Inc. v. Chandler (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b); Crosby v. Twitter, Inc.

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that the district court properly sent this case to arbitration where the incorporation of the AAA Rules into an arbitration agreement is “‘clear and unmistakable” evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability, given that the AAA Rules give arbitrators the exclusive authority to decide that issue. Plaintiff-Piersing and a fellow former employee of defendant-Domino’s Pizza sued Domino’s under federal antitrust and state law. Domino’s moved to compel arbitration. Piersing argued that the arbitration agreement he had signed was unenforceable because Domino’s never signed the agreement, only the franchise had signed. The district court granted Domino’s motion and sent the case to the arbitrator. The court discussed the Supreme Court’s heightened standard for arbitrability—“‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that the parties agreed to have an arbitrator decide such issues.” Piersing’s agreement established that it would be controlled by the AAA Rules, which provide that the arbitrator can rule on “‘any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.’” The issue was whether this constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that he “agreed to arbitrate ‘arbitrability.’” The court noted that district courts in this circuit, along with several of its sister circuits, have long ruled that that the incorporation of the AAA Rules into an agreement is “‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate ‘arbitrability.’” While Piersing offered several arguments why the court “should be the first circuit court in the country to find that the incorporation of the AAA Rules doesn’t provide ‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that he agreed to arbitrate ‘arbitrability[,]’” the court found none persuasive. It also rejected his claim that the district court improperly denied him leave to amend where he failed to file “a motion for leave to amend—as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the local rules.” Affirmed.