Stay pending arbitration; MCR 3.602(C); “Must”; “On just terms”

Holding that the trial court was required to stay the case pending arbitration, the court reversed and remanded for the trial court to reinstate the case and enter a stay of proceedings. Plaintiff-Moorehead worked for defendant-Van Buren Public Schools (Van Buren). Her “employment application contained an arbitration clause stating that she agreed to arbitrate any employment-related disputes.” She argued “that the trial court erred by refusing to stay proceedings rather than dismiss her complaint because caselaw, statutory law, and the court rules required the court to enter a stay.” The trial “court abused its discretion by denying the stay because MCL 691.1687(6) and (7), MCR 3.602(C), and caselaw required” it to enter one. The court rejected “Van Buren’s argument that the phrase ‘on just terms’ in MCL 691.1687(6) and (7) required the [trial] court to enter a stay only if ‘just terms’ required doing so. The phrase ‘on just terms’ did not render a stay discretionary; the statutory language did not require the court to determine whether granting a stay was ‘just.’ Rather, it required the court to stay proceedings ‘on just terms.’” Van Buren also argued “that the trial court did not err by dismissing the action rather than staying proceedings because Moorehead refuses to arbitrate her claims.” The court noted its “decision should not be interpreted as validating Moorehead’s refusal to arbitrate this dispute until our Supreme Court decides the case that she asserts entitles her refusal.” The court did “not hold that Moorehead was entitled to refuse to arbitrate this matter.” Rather, it held “that the trial court was required to stay the proceeding regardless of Moorehead’s motivations.” Further, it concluded that “if Moorehead fails to comply with a court order regarding arbitration on remand, including an order requiring her to select an arbitrator, the trial court may impose sanctions.”