St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, et al., Respondents, vs. National Football League, et al., and The Rams Football Company, LLC, and E. Stanley Kroenke, Appellants.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO ST. LOUIS REGIONAL CONVENTION AND SPORTS COMPLEX AUTHORITY, ET AL., Respondents, vs. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, ET AL., and THE RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC and E. STANLEY KROENKE, Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED106282 Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City Honorable Christopher E. McGraugh Filed: October 2, 2018 OPINION ON APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER Appellants argue that we failed to address the antecedent question of whether the parties delegated to arbitrators, not courts, the power to decide arbitrability, contravening Pinkerton. Appellants are incorrect. In our opinion, we specifically distinguished Pinkerton on the ground that Pinkerton had an applicable arbitration agreement; whereas, this case does not. We fail to see how parties can delegate the power to decide arbitrability if there is no applicable arbitration provision in the first place. Appellants want us to ignore what this lawsuit is about, i.e., the NFL Policy, presume their 1995 Lease applies to this lawsuit, and then send it blindly to arbitration because the parties entered into the 1995 Lease that contains an arbitration delegation provision. But to do so we would have to ignore the basic principles that arbitration is solely a matter of contract, and that a party is not required to arbitrate matters it has not agreed to arbitrate. The parties to the NFL Policy – what this case is about – did not agree to arbitration. As Pinkterton set forth: Parties cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he [or she] has not agreed so to submit. Therefore, because arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion, a court must be satisfied that the parties have concluded or formed an arbitration agreement before the court may order arbitration to proceed according to the terms of the agreement. Questions concerning whether an arbitration agreement was ever concluded are, therefore, generally nonarbitral question[s]. 531 S.W.3d at 49 (internal questions and citations omitted). Our decision is in accord with Pinkerton. Appellants also contend we ignored their defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims in evaluating whether the arbitration clauses from the 1995 Lease or 1995 Relocation Agreement covered the disputes at issue in this case. This is not true. We considered Appellants “artfully pleaded” defenses and did not find they required arbitration. The application for transfer is denied. _______________________________ Philip M. Hess, Judge Lisa P. Page, C.J. and Roy L. Richter, J. concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
