Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., 292 Minn. 334, 340-41, 197 N.W.2d 448, 452 (1972), overruled on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, 669 N.W.2d 344, 351 (Minn. 2003); Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Minn.App. 2005). When considering whether a claim is subject to arbitration, we are mindful of the fact that arbitration has long held favored status under Minnesota law.

We review de novo an order denying an application to compel arbitration. Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Minn.App. 2005). "When considering a motion to compel arbitration, the court's inquiry is limited to (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and (2) whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement."

Therefore, "[w]hen considering a motion to compel arbitration, the court's inquiry is limited to (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and (2) whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement." Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Minn.App. 2005) (quotation omitted). In a judicial proceeding to compel or stay arbitration, the district court must ascertain the intention of the parties from the language of the arbitration agreement.

.” Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Minn.Ct.App. 2005) (internal citations omitted); Glacier Park, 948 N.W.2d at 694 (“Minnesota appellate courts have often construed arbitration agreements broadly.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Under Minnesota law, a written agreement to arbitrate is presumptively valid, enforceable and irrevocable. Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 ( Minn. Ct. App. 2005); Minn. Stat. § 572B.06(a) ("An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of contract."). Next, the Court must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate certain claims.

Moreover, an arbitration agreement is presumptively "valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of the contract." Minn. Stat. § 572B.06 ; see also Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W. 2d 629, 632 (Minn. App. 2005). This presumption is in harmony with the Minnesota Supreme Court's "dedication to a public policy strongly favoring arbitration."

Under Minnesota law, a party urging waiver of an arbitration clause must show that the party allegedly waiving such a right had knowledge of the right in question and the intent to waive that right. See Comty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 634 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). Secura again raises many of the above addressed arguments in asserting the delay resulted in prejudice to its defense.

See City of Duluth v. Local 101 Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, No. A11–1494, 2012 WL 2202950, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. June 18, 2012) (“Even where the parties' intention is ‘reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be initially determined by the arbitrators.’ ” (quoting Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., 292 Minn. 334, 341, 197 N.W.2d 448, 452 (1972)); see also Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (same)). C. Whether Congress Intended Any of Plaintiffs' Claims to be Nonarbitrable

However, "[c]ontracts by their nature, involve the possibility of breach." Cmty. Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 634 (Minn. App. 2005). The district court was no more required to "police" the contract in this case than in any other contract case.

In Minnesota, "[a]rbitration is a proceeding favored by the law as an efficient and inexpensive means of resolving disputes between contracting parties." Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Minn.Ct.App. 2005). "When considering a motion to compel arbitration, [Minnesota courts] must determine only (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and (2) whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement."