Geneva Enterprises and AV Automotive faced a mass arbitration initiated by 31 former employees in February 2024 before the American Arbitration Association, with claims under the Virginia Wage Payment Act and one Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The dispute centered on $85,000 in arbitration initiation fees that Geneva refused to pay, arguing that four employees had never signed arbitration agreements and all had failed to meet conditions precedent to arbitrating. When the AAA told the former employees they could advance the fees themselves and seek reimbursement later, the workers returned to federal court demanding Geneva pay upfront.
The Fourth Circuit found it lacked appellate jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act, despite the employees' argument that they were appealing a denial of their motion to compel arbitration. As King wrote, 'the district court's March 2025 Order — which clearly refused to lift the previously-imposed stay of the district court proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration before the AAA — was, like the non-appealed June 2024 Order, an order directing arbitration to proceed.' Under Section 16(b)(1) and (2), appeals from such orders are prohibited.
The court criticized the employees' attempt to manufacture appellate jurisdiction through creative motion captions. 'The former employees captioned their Renewed Motion as a Combined Motion to Lift Stay and Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration,' King observed, but 'the Renewed Motion's text tells a much different story.' Because they sought relief beyond what the FAA provides — including ordering fee payment — they 'are no longer proceeding exclusively under the FAA and have forfeited their right to interlocutory review under § 16(a).'
The procedural history began when Geneva filed suit in Virginia state court in March 2024 seeking to enjoin the arbitrations. The employees removed the case to the Eastern District of Virginia in April 2024, and Senior District Judge Claude M. Hilton granted their motion to stay the federal proceedings pending arbitration in his June 2024 order. When they returned to court eight months later seeking fee payment orders, Hilton denied their renewed motion, explaining that 'this case has already been referred to arbitration and the case stayed.'
Geneva argued throughout that the employees had failed to comply with arbitration prerequisites and that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case. The company maintained that the March 2025 order was effectively a grant of the stay that had already been imposed, making any appeal impermissible under the FAA's jurisdictional restrictions. The employees countered that they were entitled to a federal court order compelling fee payment even while arbitration was stayed.
The Fourth Circuit declined to address Geneva's challenge to the district court's federal question jurisdiction, noting that courts of appeals can only examine lower court jurisdiction issues when they first possess appellate jurisdiction themselves. As King explained, 'if the court of appeals is not satisfied with its own appellate jurisdiction — the situation here — then the court of appeals is not empowered to do anything except dismiss the improvidently-filed appeal, without reaching or assessing the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction.'
The dismissal leaves the fee dispute to be resolved in the underlying arbitration proceedings. The court warned against allowing jurisdictional end-runs, noting that permitting review would 'impermissibly swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered.' The case represents a cautionary tale about the narrow limits on interlocutory appeals in arbitration disputes, particularly when parties seek relief beyond the FAA's specific provisions.