Cited by

Second, Arizona has a strong policy interest in enforcing arbitration provisions, North Valley Emergency Specialists, ¶ 16 (2004); ¶ 34 (2017) (referring to “the strong public policy favoring arbitration” as Arizona’s preferred method of dispute resolution); whereas, as we will discuss in greater detail later, the state also has a strong interest in enforcing its consumer fraud statutes.

CONCLUSION ¶20 “When parties have agreed to submit their claims to arbitration, ‘the parties, having chosen a different tribunal, may not reinstate judicial tribunals to resolve the controversy.’” ¶ 34 (2017) (quoting Canon Sch.

See Rent-A- Center, 561 U.S. at 70 (“[A] party’s challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.”); ¶¶ 15–16 (2017) (recognizing Arizona’s adoption of the separability doctrine).

Accordingly, Arizona’s revised uniform arbitration act “strictly limits the superior court’s options after the arbitration process is complete.” ¶ 31 (2017).

See Cir. City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 119 (2001); ¶ 20 (2017).

Co., 388 U.S. 395, 402 (1967)

And the law “strictly limits the superior court’s options after the arbitration process is complete.” ¶ 31 (2017).

.”)); ¶ 31 (2017) (RUAA “strictly limits the superior court’s options after the arbitration process is complete.” (citing A.R.S.

¶ 34 (2017) (noting that public policy favors arbitration).

Co. v. El Destino, LP, ¶ 10 (App. 2011); –88, ¶¶ 16–17 (2017); 9 U.S.C.

Hamblen v. Hatch , , 491, ¶ 34, , 107 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1(a), and "the case presents an issue of statewide importance and first impression," ¶ 12 (2017).

See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 109 (2001); ¶ 20 (2017) (citing Circuit City and acknowledging that “the FAA applies to arbitration agreements in employment contracts”).