Dear Maria, I have looked at your request to analyze what the New York, Courts attitudes have been towards arbitration and the mediation clauses. I have done some research on what the courts have said about the desirability of sing alternative dispute resolution methods to settle disputes. In my research I have look at two particular cases. The first case I examined was CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. American Envtl. Waste Mgmt., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20064 (1998). In this case the Court stated that “The Federal Arbitration Act defines Arbitration as a process that will “Settle” the controversy, when the court is analyzing in whether to grant an order to compel mediation.” Further, when a court considers a motion to compel arbitration or mediation, the court must determine whether or not the issues presented are arbitratable. The court must determine if the parties have agreed to arbitration and if so, the court will need to assess the scope of the agreement to determine if it includes the asserted claims. Also, the court must decide any asserted Federal statutory claims are intended by the United States Congress to be non- arbitrable. If some, but not all of them are arbitrable, the court will have to decide whether to stay the proceedings as to any remaining claims. Typically, “Federal policy strongly recommends arbitration and mediation.” The Supreme Court has stated “Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues, should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is to be construed that the contract language in itself or an allegation of waiver. Delay or like defense to arbitrability.”

In the second case I researched, Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 84 L. Ed. 2d 158, 105 S. Ct. 1238 (1985), The court stated “The Arbitration Act requires district courts to compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable