How Do I Compel Arbitration in Minnesota?

How does a motion to compel arbitration work in Minnesota?

A motion to compel arbitration asks a court to order the other side into the arbitration your contract requires. The court must grant it if the other side does not oppose. If the other side does oppose, the court decides the question in a summary proceeding and orders arbitration unless it finds no enforceable agreement.

Minn. Stat. § 572B.07(a) provides: “On motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person’s refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate if the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion.” If the other side opposes, “the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. Unless the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate.” Your motion therefore has two jobs: to show the agreement and to allege the refusal.

A contract cannot take this motion away from you. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.04(c), the parties to an agreement to arbitrate “may not waive or vary the requirements” of a list of sections, and the motion-to-compel section is on that list.

An unopposed motion is a real possibility. In one lawsuit against a client of mine, the other side’s attorney responded to the motion to stay the case and compel arbitration by writing that the plaintiff was prepared to arbitrate and proposing a stipulated motion to stay the court case. A stipulation like that can settle where the dispute will be heard without a contested hearing.

Which law governs the motion: Minnesota’s arbitration act or the Federal Arbitration Act?

Minnesota’s arbitration act governs a motion to compel in a Minnesota court, and the FAA also applies when the contract involves interstate commerce.

The Minnesota act reaches older contracts too. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.03(b), “On or after August 1, 2011, sections 572B.01 to 572B.31 govern agreements to arbitrate even if the arbitration agreement was entered into prior to August 1, 2011.”

The federal statute enters through the contract’s subject matter. In Glacier Park Iron Ore Properties, LLC v. United States Steel Corp., 961 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2021), the Minnesota Supreme Court described one of its earlier decisions as “holding that in cases involving interstate commerce, Minnesota courts must analyze the case under the FAA and federal cases interpreting that act.” The parties there agreed the FAA controlled their iron-ore lease dispute. Under 9 U.S.C. § 2, a written arbitration provision in “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce” “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract or as otherwise provided in chapter 4.”

Two federal provisions bear on an employer moving to compel arbitration of an employee’s claim. The first is the chapter 4 carve-out for sexual harassment and sexual assault disputes, covered in the questions below. The second is 9 U.S.C. § 1. It provides that “nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The U.S. Supreme Court chose to construe that clause “to confine the exemption to transportation workers” in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). In a Minnesota court, Minn. Stat. § 572B.06(a) also makes an agreement to arbitrate contained in a record “valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of contract.” More on arbitration of employee claims is on its own page.

What does the court decide on a motion to compel, and what goes to the arbitrator?

The court decides whether an agreement to arbitrate exists and whether this dispute falls within it. The arbitrator decides whether a condition precedent to arbitrability was met and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable, though a narrow clause may not reach a claim attacking how the contract was formed. The court also may not refuse arbitration because the claim looks weak.

The statute divides the questions. The court decides “whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, except in the case of a grievance arising under a collective bargaining agreement when an arbitrator shall decide” (Minn. Stat. § 572B.06(b)). The arbitrator decides “whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable” (§ 572B.06(c)). The Minnesota Supreme Court held in Glacier Park that a lease clause limited to four kinds of disputes was “not sufficiently broad to include contract formation claims,” and it added that “to read Minn. Stat. § 572B.06(c) as broadly as Glacier Park suggests runs afoul of the well-settled principle that a party cannot be required to arbitrate claims that they have not agreed, by contract, to arbitrate.” The court also “may not refuse to order arbitration because the claim subject to arbitration lacks merit or grounds for the claim have not been established” (Minn. Stat. § 572B.07(c)). If an arbitration is already underway when the other side challenges the agreement in court, “the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders” (§ 572B.06(d)).

The Minnesota Court of Appeals described the same limit in Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale, 697 N.W.2d 629 (Minn. App. 2005), a case under the former version of the statute. Quoting an earlier decision, it wrote that “the court’s inquiry is limited to (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists,” and (2) whether the dispute falls within the agreement’s scope.

For a dispute governed by the FAA, a contract can hand the question whether a dispute is arbitrable to the arbitrator, but only in clear terms. Glacier Park holds: “Unless clear and unmistakable evidence shows that the parties intended to delegate the issue to an arbitrator, the court, not the arbitrator, decides whether a dispute governed by the Federal Arbitration Act is arbitrable.” The lease there was silent on the point, and the court rejected the argument that the clause’s breadth was enough: “For the question of arbitrability to be subject to arbitration, the parties must express that agreement to arbitrate in clear language.”

Under the FAA, when a contract does contain that clear language, the court must follow it. In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63 (2019), a case under the FAA, the U.S. Supreme Court held: “When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract.” The Court did not decide whether the contract in that case delegated the question. The same opinion states the step that comes first: “before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.” The arguments the other side can raise against the clause itself are covered in the defenses the other side may raise.

How do courts decide whether a dispute falls within the arbitration clause?

Courts read the clause’s own words. Doubts about scope are resolved in favor of arbitration, but a party cannot be sent to arbitrate a claim it has not agreed to arbitrate, so a narrow list of covered disputes can defeat the motion.

Glacier Park states both sides of the rule. “A party cannot be required to arbitrate claims that they have not agreed, by contract, to arbitrate.” Yet “[a]ny doubt with respect to the intent of the parties regarding the scope of arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” For broad clauses, such as one covering all claims arising under the contract, “courts enforce those clauses as written and the parties will need to carve out any issue they do not want to go to arbitration.”

The two outcomes show how the wording decides the motion:

1. A narrow clause. The lease in Glacier Park sent four kinds of disputes to arbitration: mining practices, facts affecting royalties, facts about either party’s observance or fulfillment of the lease terms, and other matters the lease specifically named. The party seeking arbitration claimed the lease had been procured through a breach of fiduciary duty and sought rescission. The court held that a claim about the lease’s formation fell outside those four categories and affirmed the denial of the motion to compel.
2. A broad clause. In Community Partners, an engineering firm sued a city for unpaid invoices under a contract sending “all questions in dispute” to arbitration. Applying the former version of Minnesota’s arbitration statute, the court reversed the denial of the city’s motion: “Respondent presents run-of-the-mill breach of contract claims, and simply desires to be paid for work performed under the contract. Such claims were anticipated by the arbitration agreement.”

I suggest reading the clause’s description of covered disputes against each claim in the complaint before filing, because the motion succeeds claim by claim. The same wording questions matter at the front end, when drafting an arbitration clause that holds up.

Where and how do you file a motion to compel arbitration?

If a lawsuit is already pending, you file the motion in that court. If no lawsuit is pending, you file in the county the statute names and serve the motion the way a summons is served.

Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.07(d), “If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in court, a motion under this section must be filed in that court.” Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.05(a), the request “must be made by motion to the court and heard in the manner and upon the notice provided by law or rule of court for making and hearing motions,” so the court’s ordinary motion rules apply. Under § 572B.05(b), the first motion “must be served in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in a civil action unless a civil action is already pending involving the agreement to arbitrate.”

When no case is pending, Minn. Stat. § 572B.27 sets the county. The motion “must be filed in the court of the county in which the agreement to arbitrate specifies the arbitration hearing is to be held or, if the hearing has been held, in the court of the county in which it was held.” Otherwise, “the motion must be filed in any county in which an adverse party resides or has a place of business or, if no adverse party has a residence or place of business in this state, in the court of any county in this state.” The statute adds: “All subsequent motions must be filed in the court hearing the initial motion unless the court otherwise directs.”

The motion should show the agreement and allege the refusal, the two elements of § 572B.07(a):

1. The agreement. Minn. Stat. § 572B.06(a) enforces an agreement to arbitrate “contained in a record,” and Minn. Stat. § 572B.01(7) defines a record as “information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.” I suggest filing the complete contract, not only the clause, because the court may read the clause against the rest of the contract. Proof of acceptance matters especially for an unsigned arbitration agreement.
2. The refusal. The motion must allege the other side’s refusal to arbitrate. A lawsuit filed in place of arbitration, or a written demand the other side rejects or ignores, gives you facts to allege. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.09(a), a demand is given “by giving notice in a record to the other parties to the agreement to arbitrate in the agreed manner between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, by mail certified or registered, return receipt requested and obtained, or by service as authorized for the initiation of a civil action.” The same subsection adds: “The notice must describe the nature of the controversy and the remedy sought.” If you have already started the arbitration and the other side simply stays away, an arbitration the other side ignores has its own path.

Federal court works differently. Under 9 U.S.C. § 4, “A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28,” so the federal court needs its own basis for jurisdiction over the dispute. If the agreement’s existence is contested, “If the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof.” The statute also provides that “The hearing and proceedings, under such agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed.”

What happens to the lawsuit while the motion is pending and after it is granted?

Once you file the motion, the court must stay, on just terms, any court proceeding that involves a claim said to be subject to arbitration until it decides the motion. If it orders arbitration, the stay continues, and the court may limit the stay to an arbitrable claim only if that claim is severable.

Minn. Stat. § 572B.07(e) provides: “If a party files a motion with the court to order arbitration under this section, the court shall on just terms stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until the court renders a final decision under this section.” Under § 572B.07(f), “If the court orders arbitration, the court shall on just terms stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may sever it and limit the stay to that claim.” A lawsuit with claims on both sides of the clause is addressed in the questions below.

In federal court, 9 U.S.C. § 3 requires a stay on request. The court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.” The U.S. Supreme Court applied that text in Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). When a dispute is arbitrable “and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration.” The Court explained that a stay, unlike a dismissal, lets the parties return to the same federal court if the arbitration breaks down. I suggest asking for the stay expressly in a federal motion, because the holding turns on a party’s request.

How can a business lose the right to compel arbitration by waiting?

A business can lose the right to arbitrate by taking part in the lawsuit for months before asking for arbitration. Minnesota courts found waiver where a defendant answered on the merits and litigated for nearly a year, and found none where a defendant raised arbitration within weeks.

In The Brothers Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1980), decided under the former statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court restated its rule: “a party to a contract containing an arbitration provision will be deemed to have waived any right to arbitration if judicial proceedings based on that contract have been initiated and have not been expeditiously challenged on the grounds that disputes under the contract are to be arbitrated.” Atari had lost its copy of the agreement, answered on the merits, and litigated for nearly a year before moving. The court refused to excuse Atari’s delay, reasoning that “absent fraud or concealment, a party should be deemed to have knowledge of the terms of agreements that he has executed,” and it affirmed the denial of arbitration: “We conclude, therefore, that the trial court’s finding of laches was proper since Atari participated in the litigation with constructive knowledge of its right to arbitration.” The court also held that a trial court may decide this defense itself when it rests on conduct in the lawsuit before that court.

Community Partners shows the other result. The city served a draft motion about two weeks after it was sued and moved to compel about ten weeks after suit. The court wrote that “Minnesota favors arbitration as a means of conflict resolution, but the right to arbitration may be waived,” and found “nothing in the record that would reflect a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of the right to arbitrate by appellant.” It also recited an earlier rule that conduct inconsistent with arbitration “is not enough to support a finding of waiver unless such action is accompanied by prejudice to the objecting party.”

The FAA rule on prejudice is different. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022), an employer moved to compel arbitration nearly eight months after being sued, after filing a motion to dismiss, answering, and mediating. The U.S. Supreme Court held that “prejudice is not a condition of finding that a party waived its right to stay litigation or compel arbitration under the FAA,” and wrote that “a court must hold a party to its arbitration contract just as the court would to any other kind.” The Court did not decide what role state law plays in that question.

I suggest raising arbitration in your company’s first filing in the lawsuit and moving promptly, because each step taken on the merits before the motion adds to a waiver argument under either test. The response deadline and the other early decisions are covered in the first weeks after your company is served. Interim relief is different: under Minn. Stat. § 572B.08(c), “A motion to a court for a provisional remedy under subsection (a) or (b) does not waive any right of arbitration.” Subsection (a) makes that relief available on motion “of a party to an arbitration proceeding,” and only “to the same extent and under the same conditions as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action,” so the ordinary standards for temporary injunctions in Minnesota commercial cases still apply. Once an arbitrator can act, a court can grant that relief only in the narrower cases described in the questions below.

How do you defend against arbitration in Minnesota?

You defend against arbitration in Minnesota by showing the court that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate this dispute with you. If the other side moves to compel, you oppose the motion. If the other side has started or threatened an arbitration, you can ask the court to stop it.

Both routes run through Minn. Stat. § 572B.07. Opposing a motion to compel under § 572B.07(a) leads the court to “proceed summarily to decide the issue,” and “If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement, it may not order the parties to arbitrate.” Under § 572B.07(b), the party resisting arbitration can move first: “On motion of a person alleging that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is no agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue.” Under that subsection, if the court finds an enforceable agreement, it orders arbitration; if it finds none, it may not.

Common Defenses Against Motions to Compel Arbitration

The defenses to a motion to compel arbitration fall into a short list:

1. No agreement or no mutual assent. The court decides “whether an agreement to arbitrate exists” (Minn. Stat. § 572B.06(b)). If you never accepted the contract, or the arbitration terms were never made part of it (a clause in a separate document the contract did not effectively incorporate, for example), you have a defense at this step. More on arbitration agreements that fail for lack of mutual assent is on its own page.
2. Fraud, duress, or unconscionability. Section 572B.06(a) enforces an agreement to arbitrate “except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of contract,” and 9 U.S.C. § 2 uses parallel language. Fraud, duress, and unconscionability are the arguments parties most often raise under that language. Aim the argument at the arbitration clause itself where you can: under § 572B.06(c), the arbitrator decides “whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable,” so an attack on the contract as a whole may be sent to the arbitrator unless, as in Glacier Park, the clause is too narrow to reach it.
3. The dispute is outside the clause. A narrow clause defeated the motion in Glacier Park, because “a party cannot be required to arbitrate claims that they have not agreed, by contract, to arbitrate.” Compare each claim against the clause’s list of covered disputes, as described above.
4. You are not a party to the agreement. Someone who never signed the contract can sometimes enforce it, or be bound by it, under ordinary contract law. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed nonparties in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009). It noted that “traditional principles” of state law allow a contract to be enforced by or against nonparties through “assumption, piercing the corporate veil, alter ego, incorporation by reference, third-party beneficiary theories, waiver and estoppel”. The Court held that a nonparty “may invoke § 3 if the relevant state contract law allows him to enforce the agreement.” If none of those theories fits your relationship to the contract, your nonparty status is a defense.
5. The other side waived arbitration. A party that litigates for months before moving can lose the right, as Brothers Jurewicz and Morgan show in the section on waiting.
6. A statute removes the claim from arbitration. An employee alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault can elect to keep that case in court under 9 U.S.C. § 402, covered in the questions below.

Timing matters on this side too. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.23(a)(5), a court vacates an award where “there was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under section 572B.15, subsection (c), not later than the commencement of the arbitration hearing.” I suggest raising the objection in writing at the start, and asking the court to decide it, rather than taking part in the arbitration and saving the argument for later.

Why would a business want arbitration instead of court?

A business usually moves to compel arbitration for a faster, private proceeding before a decision-maker it helped choose, with a narrower path to challenge the result. Those benefits come with costs a court does not charge, so weigh both before you file.

Strategic Advantages of Moving to Arbitration After a Lawsuit Is Filed

The advantages that matter most to a business are these:

1. Speed. For AAA cases closed in 2025, the American Arbitration Association reports that “the median time to award for large-dollar B2B cases was 18.7 months, compared to the median time to trial in U.S. District Court of 34.1 months.”
2. Control over the decision-maker. The parties can set how the arbitrator is chosen, covered below.
3. Limited discovery. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.17(c), “An arbitrator may permit such discovery as the arbitrator decides is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the needs of the parties to the arbitration proceeding and other affected persons and the desirability of making the proceeding fair, expeditious, and cost-effective.”
4. Privacy. A court file is presumed public; an arbitration can be kept private by agreement, covered below.
5. Finality. A court may vacate an award only on the grounds listed in Minn. Stat. § 572B.23(a), such as an award “procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means” or an arbitrator who “exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” That finality cuts both ways: a mistaken award is hard to undo.
6. Settlement pressure. Many arbitrations end before an award. The same AAA page reports that “52% of B2B cases closed in 2025 settled prior to an award being rendered.”

How Does Arbitration Affect Confidentiality Compared to Court Trials?

A court case is public by default, and an arbitration is private only to the extent your agreement or the chosen rules make it so. Under Minn. R. Pub. Access to Recs. of Jud. Branch 2, “Records of all courts and court administrators in the state of Minnesota are presumed to be open to any member of the public for inspection or copying at all times during the regular office hours of the custodian of the records.”

Minnesota’s arbitration act does not impose a general confidentiality duty on the parties. Its one confidentiality provision lets the arbitrator protect particular information: under Minn. Stat. § 572B.17(e), “An arbitrator may issue a protective order to prevent the disclosure of privileged information, confidential information, trade secrets, data classified as nonpublic or private pursuant to chapter 13, and other information protected from disclosure as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action in this state.” If confidentiality matters to your business, I suggest writing a confidentiality term into the clause itself. Keep in mind that a motion to confirm or vacate the award is filed in court, so the award can become part of a public court record.

What Costs Are Involved in Arbitration Versus Litigation?

In arbitration, the parties pay the arbitrator, and usually an administering organization, in addition to their own attorneys. A court does not bill the parties for the judge’s time. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.21(d), “An arbitrator’s expenses and fees, together with other expenses, must be paid as provided in the award.” If an organization administers the case, its fee schedule adds filing and case fees; check the current schedule of the organization your clause names before you file.

An arbitrator can shift attorney fees only where a law or the parties’ agreement allows it. Under § 572B.21(b), “An arbitrator may award attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of arbitration if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding.” Arbitration can still cost less overall when limited discovery and a shorter timeline cut attorney time, which is usually the largest expense in a business dispute.

Can Parties Choose an Arbitrator With Specific Expertise?

Yes. The method your agreement sets for choosing the arbitrator controls. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.11(a), “If the parties to an agreement to arbitrate agree on a method for appointing an arbitrator, that method must be followed, unless the method fails.” If there is no agreed method, or it fails, “the court, on motion of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator.” A clause can therefore require, for example, an arbitrator with construction or accounting experience. Where the clause is silent, the administering organization’s rules apply; the AAA describes a “rank and strike method, in which the parties strike and rank arbitrator candidates from a list the administrator provides.” Whatever method you choose, § 572B.11(b) bars a neutral arbitrator who “has a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party.”

How Long Does the Arbitration Process Typically Take?

No statute sets a length for an arbitration. Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.19(b), “An award must be made within the time specified by the agreement to arbitrate or, if not specified therein, within the time ordered by the court.” For larger business cases, the AAA figure above, a median of 18.7 months to award for claims of $1 million or more in cases closed in 2025, is the figure the AAA publishes for those cases. The factors that lengthen or shorten a case are mostly ones the clause and the parties control: the deadline for the award, how much discovery the arbitrator permits, the number of arbitrators, the arbitrator’s availability, and whether the parties settle first.

What happens after the court rules on the motion?

If the court grants the motion, the dispute goes to arbitration and the lawsuit stays paused. If the court denies it, Minnesota’s act allows an appeal from that order.

Under Minn. Stat. § 572B.28(a), an appeal may be taken from “an order denying a motion to compel arbitration,” and under § 572B.28(b), “An appeal under this section must be taken as from an order or a judgment in a civil action.” The list in § 572B.28(a) does not include an order granting a motion to compel arbitration. Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, the time to appeal an appealable order runs from “service by any party of written notice of its filing.”

Federal law draws the same line. Under 9 U.S.C. § 16, an appeal may be taken from an order “denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed,” while § 16(b) bars an appeal from an interlocutory order “directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title”, apart from one narrow exception the statute names.

Once the arbitration ends, the award returns to court to be confirmed, or to be challenged on the limited grounds the statute allows, covered in challenging an arbitration award.

Next Steps Before You Move to Compel Arbitration

A motion to compel arbitration in Minnesota turns on a short list of facts: an agreement in a record, a refusal, a dispute within the clause, and a request made before the lawsuit has gone far. Under chapter 572B, the court must order arbitration unless it finds no enforceable agreement, and while the motion is pending it must stay, on just terms, any court proceeding that involves a claim said to be subject to arbitration. When the contract involves interstate commerce, the FAA adds its own rules on delegation, stays, and waiver.

The sequence that follows from those rules is to read the clause against each claim, decide whether the FAA applies, send a written demand if no lawsuit is pending, and, if your company has been sued, raise arbitration in its first filing and move in that court. More on contract work and contract disputes is on the practice page. If you want to know whether your arbitration clause reaches a lawsuit filed against your company, and what a motion to compel would need to show, email [email protected] with a short description of the contract and the claims.