Motion to Compel Arbitration Alabama
A direct appeal is the proper procedure by which to seek review of a trial court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration. See Crimson Industries, Inc. v. Kirkland, 736 So. 2d 597, 600 (Ala. 1999); A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Clark, 558 So. 2d 358, 360 (Ala. 1990);
see also Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. 16 (1994) (providing that an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration). This Court reviews de novo a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. See Kirkland, 736 So. 2d at 600; Patrick Home Center, Inc. v. Karr, 730 So. 2d 1171, 1171 (Ala. 1999).
The fact that the limitation-of-remedies provision contains both an arbitration provision and a choice-of-law provision ("This warranty ... shall be governed by the laws of the State of Alabama.") does not render that provision internally inconsistent or ambiguous.
In Mastrobuono, the United States Supreme Court interpreted a brokerage-account agreement that contained an arbitration provision and a choice-of-law provision in the same paragraph. See 514 U.S. at 54. the first sentence of that paragraph provided that the entire agreement "shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York." Id. at 58-59.