University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository
Abstract
The issue presented in Six Clinics Holding Corporation, I v. Cafcomp Systems, Inc., is whether a court is prohibited from issuing a preliminary injunction in a case subject to arbitration.\u27 The parties had a private agreement to arbitrate any disputes, but the court enjoined the arbitration in order to determine a federal issue outside the arbitrator\u27s jurisdiction The defendant argued that the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings, was violated.4 However, the court found a loophole by stating that a private arbitration is not a state proceeding and thus is not governed by the Act.5 This escape hatch is an all too easy method to avoid the Anti-Injunction Act\u27s purpose and strictly construed exceptions. By allowing a preliminary injunction of an arbitration proceeding, the Six Clinics court has diluted the strength and effect of alternative dispute resolution methods like arbitration
