9 U.S.C. § 3. A motion to compel arbitration brought pursuant to section 3 requires the court to determine: (1) whether there is a written agreement to arbitrate, (2) whether the dispute falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement; and, (3) whether the party seeking arbitration has waived the right to compel arbitration. See Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New Eng. Tel. Tel. Co., 62 F. Supp. 2d 152, 155-56 (D. Me. 1999) (citation omitted); Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 68 v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 222 F. Supp. 2d 50, 52 (D. Me. 2002) (citations omitted). Federal and Maine law cast a generally favorable eye on arbitration agreements.

In order for the Court to require arbitration, the Court must find that (1) there exists a written agreement to arbitrate; (2) the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement; (3) the party seeking an arbitral forum has not waived its right to compel arbitration. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. New Eng. Tel. Tel. Co., 62 F. Supp. 2d 152, 155-56 (D. Me. 1999) (citing Brennan v. King, 139 F.3d 258, 263-67 (1st Cir. 1998)); Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 68 v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 222 F. Supp. 2d 50, 52 (D. Me. 2002). In determining whether there is an agreement to arbitrate, courts apply state contract law.

In order to grant a motion brought pursuant to these provisions, the Court must find that (i) there exists a written agreement to arbitrate, (ii) the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement, and (iii) the party seeking an arbitral forum has not waived its right to arbitration. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. New England Tel. Tel. Co., 62 F. Supp.2d 152, 155 (D.Me. 1999). "The question whether the parties agreed to arbitrate certain matters [is] for the court to decide."

; see Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985). When considering a motion to compel arbitration, a court must decide whether “(i) there exists a written agreement to arbitrate, (ii) the dispute falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement, and (iii) the party seeking an arbitral forum has not waived its right to arbitration.” Combined Energies v. CCI, Inc., 514 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.Supp.2d 152, 155 (D. Me.1999). Arbitration being a creature of contract, “principles of state contract law control the determination of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

InterCoast argues consequently that because the issues before the Court are arbitrable, the Court should dismiss the case and that dismissal is advantageous on various grounds. Id. (citing Boulet v. Bangor Sec. Inc. , 324 F.Supp.2d 120, 127 (D. Me. 2004) (quoting Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co. , 62 F.Supp.2d 152, 161 n.9 (D. Me. 1999) ) ). B. Plaintiffs' Opposition

9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court's consideration of a motion to compel arbitration involves the determination of whether there is an agreement to arbitrate, whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement, and whether the party seeking arbitration has waived the right to compel arbitration. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New England Tel. Tel. Co., 62 F. Supp.2d 152, 155 (Me. 1999) (citing Brennan v. King, 139 F.3d 258, 263-67 (1st Cir. 1998)). "[Q]uestions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration."

9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court's consideration of a motion to compel arbitration involves the determination of whether there is an agreement to arbitrate, whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement, and whether the party seeking arbitration has waived the right to compel arbitration. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New England Tel. Tel. Co., 62 F. Supp.2d 152, 155 (D.Me. 1999) (citing Brennan v. King, 139 F.3d 258, 263-67 (1st Cir. 1998)). "[Q]uestions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration."

Because the parties have not addressed that requirement, this Court assumes they agree that this case implicates a contract involving a transaction in interstate commerce. See Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co., 62 F. Supp.2d 152, 155 n. 4 (Me. 1999) (making that assumption). Even absent such agreement, it is clear that both a stock purchase agreement and an employment contract between a Massachusetts corporation and a New Hampshire citizen involve interstate commerce.

Therefore, in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, a court must first determine "whether '... there exists a written agreement to arbitrate.' " Combined Energies v. CCI, Inc., 514 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.Supp.2d 152, 155 (D. Me. 1999) ). The burden of making that showing lies on the party seeking to compel arbitration.

When deciding a motion to compel arbitration, a court must determine whether "(i) there exists a written agreement to arbitrate, (ii) the dispute falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement, and (iii) the party seeking an arbitral forum has not waived its right to arbitration." Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. New England Tel. Tel Co., 62 F.Supp.2d 152, 155 (D.Me. 1999). Only if all three prongs of the test are satisfied will a motion to compel arbitration be granted.