{"meta":{"key":"s_mt--pass-16","task":"S_MT","title":"SMT Montana ordinary consumer-debt arbitration, delegation, judicial gateway, and related waiver","parent_title":"Montana debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-16","path":"/research/s_mt--pass-16/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-26","tables":11,"claims":62,"sources":32,"review_status":"revise","review_complete":true,"sha256":"5ac5df3f3c241b6eb818dd93c8980161ca3a8df559b97bbae1c8c27c87409de5","headings":["I. Executive findings","A. Actor matrix","B. Assignment boundary","A. Decisionmaker matrix","B. Formation remains judicial","C. Delegation must be clear and unmistakable","D. Specific delegation challenge versus whole-contract challenge","Court branch","Arbitrator branch after gateway","E. Separability does not prove formation","A. Montana statutory process","State venue qualification","B. Montana answer and motion timing","C. Justice, City, and Municipal Court crossover","D. Federal court process","A. Formation and assent","B. No universal wet-ink, initial, or oral-explanation rule","C. Conflicting terms and supersession","D. Unconscionability and one-sidedness","Extreme one-sided branch","Limited-carveout branch","E. Illegality and statutory violations","F. Class and collective proceedings","G. Statutory-remedy waiver","H. Montana Part 20 DMP boundary","A. Montana statutory arbitration protections","B. Current AAA Consumer Rules","A. Federal FAA waiver","B. Montana MUAA waiver","Conduct held sufficient in Monarch","Conduct insufficient in Peeler","C. Pleading preservation","D. Nonpayment and administrator default","Current AAA rule consequences","Judicial consequence","Example 1 — Contested formation","Example 2 — Assignee with arbitration clause but account-link gap","Example 3 — Specific delegation challenge versus whole-contract defense","Example 4 — Court suit and compel motion without a stay order","Example 5 — Rules incorporated, version unknown","Example 6 — Litigation-conduct waiver","FAA branch","Montana MUAA branch","No-waiver branch","Example 7 — Consumer fee claim and arbitrability","Example 8 — Statutory remedy waiver","Example 9 — Administrator nonpayment","Example 10 — Montana DMP jury-waiver conflict","Freshly read on October 26, 2026","Dated reuse","Decision-status safeguards","Bounded negative searches and unresolved issues","Not read or resolved"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-5.6 Sol","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_MT/pass-16","facets":{"geography":["us","us-mt"],"debt_type":[],"stage":[],"subject":["arbitration-adr"]},"scope":"Ordinary Montana arbitration, delegation, formation/scope, judicial gateway, stay and waiver","pending_corrections":4},"markdown":"# S_MT PASS-16 — Montana ordinary consumer-debt arbitration, delegation, judicial gateway, and related waiver\n\n**Fresh research session:** October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC\n**Actual model/mode:** GPT-5.6 Sol Pro, regular Chat\n**Relationship to prior work:** Distinct arbitration component. Saved PASS-07 through PASS-11, PASS-13, and PASS-15 are not treated as accepted premises. PASS-12 and PASS-14 remain bounded corrections only. This is not an independent review.\n\n**Component status:** **PARTIAL.** Montana’s current Uniform Arbitration Act provisions, the governing FAA gateway, Montana contract-formation rules, current court procedure, delegation doctrine, litigation-conduct waiver standards, administrator nonpayment rules, and the principal controlling Montana and U.S. Supreme Court decisions are established. Actual assent, rule incorporation, assignment, account linkage, choice of law, governing administrator, fee schedule, nonsignatory status, statutory-remedy language, and litigation conduct remain contract- and fact-dependent.\n\n## I. Executive findings\n\n1. **Arbitration is contractual, not automatic.** A creditor, assignee, debt buyer, servicer, debt-relief provider, or affiliate cannot compel arbitration merely because the underlying account type commonly uses arbitration provisions. The moving party must first establish an arbitration agreement binding the parties, a legally sufficient right to invoke it, and coverage of the dispute. Montana contract law requires identifiable capable parties, mutual communicated consent, lawful object, and consideration. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html)\n2. **The Montana Uniform Arbitration Act and the Federal Arbitration Act are not interchangeable.**Montana generally validates written arbitration agreements subject to ordinary contract-revocation grounds.Montana’s statute excludes certain predispute agreements, including an individual’s contract for property, services, money, or credit with total consideration of **$5,000 or less**.The FAA governs a written arbitration agreement in a transaction “involving commerce” and preempts state rules that discriminate against arbitration.Whether Montana’s $5,000 exclusion controls a particular consumer transaction, or is displaced by the FAA, requires an actual commerce and preemption analysis. No controlling public Montana decision located here decides that precise interaction for an ordinary unsecured consumer debt. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html)\n3. **The FAA’s commerce reach is broad, but not unlimited.** “Involving commerce” reaches the full extent of Congress’s Commerce Clause power; the parties need not have contemplated interstate activity. The FAA nevertheless requires a written arbitration provision in a maritime transaction or contract involving commerce, and §1 contains a transportation-worker employment exclusion. An ordinary consumer-credit transaction frequently has interstate features, but no universal FAA finding may be made without the actual lender, contract, account, communications, and performance facts. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/)\n4. **A court ordinarily decides formation, existence, and which contract controls.** A delegation clause does not allow an arbitrator to decide whether the parties ever formed any arbitration agreement or which of two conflicting contracts governs. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 *Coinbase v. Suski* decision holds that a court decides which contract governs where one contract delegates arbitrability and another sends the dispute to court. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf)\n5. **Scope and enforceability are also initially judicial unless clearly delegated.** Montana’s 2024 *Bluebird* decision holds that courts decide arbitrability unless the parties clearly and unmistakably assigned that issue to the arbitrator. A broad phrase such as “any or all disputes,” by itself, did not satisfy that standard. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html)\n6. **Mentioning AAA does not automatically delegate arbitrability under Montana law.** *Bluebird* held that references to commencing a case with AAA and to paying fees “if required by AAA Rules” were too tenuous. It also reaffirmed the earlier *Ossello* conclusion that administration “pursuant to” AAA rules did not, on the language there, clearly and unmistakably displace the judicial gateway. An express incorporation of the entire applicable rules, with proof of assent and an identifiable version, presents a different question; *Bluebird* did not decide that issue for all contracts or all consumers. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html)\n7. **Current AAA Consumer Rule R-7 gives the arbitrator broad jurisdictional power, but only after incorporation and enforceability are established.** R-7 states that the arbitrator may rule on the existence, scope, and validity of the arbitration agreement and arbitrability of claims. That private rule does not itself prove that a consumer assented to AAA rules, which AAA rules govern, or that Montana’s clear-and-unmistakable standard was met. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n8. **Delegation clauses are treated as distinct agreements.** Under *Rent-A-Center*, a court decides a challenge directed specifically to the delegation provision. A challenge to the arbitration agreement or contract as a whole ordinarily goes to the arbitrator when a valid delegation agreement exists and is not specifically challenged. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf)\n9. **A court cannot reject a valid delegation because it considers the arbitrability argument “wholly groundless.”** *Henry Schein* eliminated that exception. But it presupposes a valid delegation agreement; it does not permit an arbitrator to manufacture assent, resolve which superseding contract controls, or bind a person who never agreed. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf)\n10. **Illegality and formation must be separated.** Under Montana’s *Peeler* decision and federal separability doctrine:A claim that no agreement was formed, no condition of formation occurred, or no assent existed is ordinarily judicial.A claim that the larger contract is illegal, fraudulent, or void generally goes to arbitration if a valid arbitration clause or delegation survives and the challenge is not specifically directed to it.Procedural conditions such as contractual notice, timeliness, laches, or compliance with an arbitration-demand deadline ordinarily go to the arbitrator. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html)\n11. **Assignment of the debt does not automatically transfer an enforceable arbitration right.** The assignee must prove:The consumer agreed to the arbitration clause.The clause applied to the account.The underlying right and relevant contractual enforcement rights were transferred.The particular account was included in the transfer.No later contract superseded or modified the clause.A generic bill of sale, collection placement, servicing data, or debt-buyer label does not independently prove those matters.\n12. **Nonsignatories may sometimes enforce an agreement, but only through ordinary state contract doctrines.** Potential routes include assumption, agency, alter ego, incorporation by reference, third-party-beneficiary status, waiver, and equitable estoppel. Montana’s *Peeler* decision applied equitable estoppel where the signatory alleged substantially interdependent misconduct intimately connected to the agreement containing the arbitration provision. This is a narrow fact-dependent exception, not an affiliate or servicer safe harbor. [GovInfo+2](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf)\n13. **A formal Montana application to compel has procedural effects that a private demand does not.** Under MCA §27-5-115, the District Court summarily determines a genuine dispute about existence of the agreement. An action involving an arbitrable issue must be stayed when an order or formal application under that section has been made. A settlement discussion, arbitration letter, validation request, administrator filing, or informal assertion does not itself constitute the statutory court application. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0150/0270-0050-0010-0150.html)\n14. **A motion to compel does not automatically extend a Montana answer deadline merely because it mentions arbitration.** Arbitration is an affirmative defense under Rule 8. Only a motion falling within Rule 12’s identified procedural framework automatically changes the Rule 12 answer period. A separately filed MCA §27-5-115 motion requires a stay, extension, or other court action where needed; the parties should not assume the ordinary answer or discovery deadlines disappeared merely because arbitration was demanded. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html)\n15. **Federal court procedure differs.** A standalone FAA §4 petition requires an independent basis for federal jurisdiction; the FAA itself does not create it. Section 4 requires five days’ written notice, service under the Federal Rules, and a summary trial if formation or refusal is genuinely in issue. [U.S. Code](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/)\n16. **A requested federal stay is mandatory.** Under *Smith v. Spizzirri*, once a federal court finds the dispute arbitrable and a party requests a stay under FAA §3, the court must stay rather than dismiss solely because all claims are arbitrable. The Montana statute independently contains its own stay language. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/)\n17. **Federal and Montana appeal routes are asymmetrical.**Federal law permits an immediate appeal from denial of a stay or motion to compel but generally not from an interlocutory order granting a stay or compelling arbitration.Montana permits appeal from denial of a compel application and from an order staying arbitration, but does not expressly list an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling arbitration.In federal court, a nonfrivolous FAA interlocutory appeal from denial of arbitration automatically stays district-court proceedings under *Coinbase v. Bielski*. No equivalent automatic Montana state-court rule was established here. [U.S. Code+2](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/)\n18. **Montana does not require every arbitration agreement to be separately initialed, notarized, or orally explained.** *Lenz* says those facts may matter under the totality of the circumstances but are not universal prerequisites. Arbitration-specific state burdens that place arbitration on unequal footing are preempted by the FAA. [Justia Law+3](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html)\n19. **Conflicting documents can defeat mutual assent.** In the 2026 *Bluebird* decision, mandatory nonjury-trial language conflicted with separate permissive arbitration language. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed that the ambiguity prevented knowing, voluntary, and intelligent assent to arbitration. It did not hold that every jury waiver plus arbitration provision is inconsistent; the documents there were materially contradictory. [Judicial Document Service+1](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401)\n20. **One-sided provisions require degree-and-context analysis.***Ossello* invalidated an extreme arrangement permitting the drafter to litigate its primary claim while forcing the consumer to arbitrate all claims.*Bucy* and *Big Sky* upheld narrower litigation carveouts designed to preserve status quo or address particular third-party indemnity risks.Montana does not require literally identical rights, but severe one-sidedness can defeat mutuality or support unconscionability. [Justia Law+3](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html)\n21. **CROA claims are not categorically nonarbitrable.** *CompuCredit* holds that CROA’s “right to sue,” class-action, and nonwaiver language did not constitute a contrary congressional command overriding the FAA. That decision concerns forum selection, not permission to contract away CROA’s substantive rights or to charge unlawful fees. [Library of Congress Tile+1](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf)\n22. **Montana Part 20 debt-management agreements create an unresolved arbitration conflict.** MCA §30-14-2010 prohibits a DMP from containing a jury-trial waiver, requires the plan to identify dispute resolution, and §30-14-2013 bars causing the consumer to waive Part 20 rights. Because arbitration ordinarily waives judicial and jury resolution, applying those provisions to bar arbitration may raise FAA preemption if the transaction involves commerce. No controlling public Montana decision located here resolves that exact issue. The statute cannot be converted either into a universal arbitration ban or into an automatically preempted nullity. [Montana Code Annotated+3](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html)\n23. **Class arbitration and a class-action waiver are different issues.** Under the FAA, class arbitration cannot be compelled from contractual silence or mere ambiguity; actual contractual consent is required. *Concepcion* also restricts state doctrines that condition arbitration enforcement on the availability of class procedures. Neither proposition establishes that every class waiver is valid regardless of assent, scope, federal statutory rights, or generally applicable contract defenses. [GovInfo+2](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf)\n24. **Federal arbitration waiver no longer requires prejudice.** *Morgan v. Sundance* holds that federal courts may not impose an arbitration-specific prejudice requirement; the inquiry ordinarily focuses on knowing relinquishment or conduct inconsistent with the right. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf)\n25. **Montana’s current MUAA waiver doctrine is not identical to federal waiver doctrine.** In *Monarch* (2025), the Montana Supreme Court majority applied the existing three-part knowledge, inconsistent-conduct, and prejudice test and expressly declined to decide *Morgan*’s application because the traditional test was satisfied. The Chief Justice’s discussion arguing that *Morgan* required removal of prejudice was a dissent, not the majority holding. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html)\n26. **Informal efforts to resolve a dispute are not necessarily waiver.** *Peeler* treated presuit settlement efforts and seeking arbitration at the first litigation appearance as consistent with arbitration. In contrast, *Monarch* found waiver where the party obtained relief from default without mentioning arbitration, answered, counterclaimed, requested a jury, and delayed before moving to compel, creating prejudice under the Montana test applied there. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html)\n27. **Failure to pay arbitration fees can have serious consequences, but not one universal consequence.**Current AAA rules permit another party to advance payment, participation restrictions, suspension, termination, and future administrative refusal.AAA says a nonpaying party may not be barred from defending a claim or counterclaim, and no default award may be entered merely as a sanction.Federal cases such as *Brown* and *Sink* recognize that a party’s refusal or default in a properly initiated arbitration can prevent it from later compelling arbitration.The result depends on the contract, administrator, applicable rules, allocation of fees, invoices, notices, ability or refusal to pay, and administrator or arbitrator orders. [American Arbitration Association+2](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n# II. Governing-law and regime matrix\n\n| Transaction or agreement | Prima facie regime | Important exception or conflict | Operational conclusion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Consumer credit-card or installment agreement involving interstate commerce | FAA §2, with state contract law governing formation and general defenses | FAA preempts arbitration-specific state obstacles | Do not apply Montana’s MUAA exclusions without analyzing FAA coverage and preemption |\n| Purely intrastate consumer contract over $5,000 with written arbitration clause | MUAA potentially applies | FAA may still apply if commerce is affected despite local appearance | Commerce facts remain necessary |\n| Individual contract to acquire property, services, money, or credit with total consideration ≤ $5,000 | MUAA §27-5-114(2)(b) excludes the predispute clause from subsection (2) | FAA may displace the state exclusion if the contract involves commerce | No automatic validity or invalidity |\n| Postdispute written submission of an existing controversy | MUAA §27-5-114(1) | Ordinary contract defenses remain | The $5,000 predispute exception is textually in subsection (2), not subsection (1) |\n| Transportation-worker employment agreement | FAA Chapter 1 may be excluded under §1 | State arbitration law may still apply | Not an ordinary consumer-debt rule |\n| Debt-relief or credit-repair agreement using interstate channels | FAA often potentially implicated; CROA claim can be arbitrable | Formation, actual CROA coverage, delegation, and substantive-remedy waiver remain separate | *CompuCredit* does not validate the underlying contract or fees |\n| Montana Part 20 DMP | State agreement and antiwaiver provisions apply | Potential FAA preemption where commerce is involved | Jury-waiver/arbitration result held |\n| Agreement selecting another state’s law | Contract-choice and FAA issues must be resolved first | Choice clause may not govern formation, arbitrability, or Montana public-policy issue automatically | Actual clause and scope required |\n| Insurance agreement | MUAA §27-5-114(2)(c) exception | Insurance-specific federal/state law and McCarran-Ferguson questions excluded | Not generalized to consumer debt |\n| Personal-injury claim | MUAA §27-5-114(2)(a) exception | FAA preemption/application may be disputed; *Peeler* did not decide the late-raised issue | Not an ordinary contract-debt classification |\n\nMontana’s statutory exceptions appear in §27-5-114, while the FAA’s basic enforcement command appears in 9 U.S.C. §2. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html)\n\n# III. Who may invoke the arbitration clause\n\n## A. Actor matrix\n\n| Actor | Required showing | What does not suffice by itself | Decisionmaker if contested |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Original creditor | Formation, assent, scope, no superseding agreement, right not transferred away | Creditor identity or account statement alone | Court unless validly delegated |\n| Absolute assignee or debt buyer | Valid underlying clause; assignment of claim and related enforcement right; account-level linkage; scope | Generic bill of sale, portfolio affidavit, or debt-buyer label | Court on contract/assignment gateway; arbitrator on delegated matters after gateway |\n| Multiple-step assignee | Legally sufficient path through each challenged transfer or another valid route to enforcement | Final owner’s internal ledger alone | Court initially |\n| Servicer for owner | Agency or representative authority plus contract route allowing invocation | Servicing or payment-processing role alone | Court on agency and binding status |\n| Servicer asserting own right | Assignment, assumption, third-party-beneficiary status, agency doctrine, or another recognized basis | Possession of account data | Court |\n| Affiliate | Actual agency, alter ego, third-party-beneficiary, assumption, incorporation, or equitable-estoppel facts | Common ownership or shared brand alone | Court |\n| Trustee | Valid trust, appointment, asset inclusion, and authority to enforce | “Trust” in company name | Court |\n| Collection law firm | Client’s enforceable right plus authority, or its own recognized nonsignatory doctrine | Attorney engagement alone | Court |\n| Debt-relief provider | Actual executed consumer agreement and covered claim | Registration, application, or fee receipt | Court unless valid delegation |\n| Consumer | Contractual right to demand arbitration and compliance with initiation terms | Informal complaint alone | Court or administrator depending dispute |\n| Nonsignatory consumer or guarantor | Actual assumption, agency, estoppel, third-party-beneficiary, incorporation, or other doctrine | Relationship to signatory alone | Court |\n| Administrator | Private administrative authority under incorporated rules | Its administrative acceptance is not a judicial enforceability ruling | Court retains gateway unless delegated |\n\nA nonparty ordinarily cannot compel arbitration, but Montana recognizes narrow ordinary-contract exceptions. *Peeler*’s equitable-estoppel test asks whether the signatory alleged substantially interdependent concerted misconduct by signatories and nonsignatories and whether those allegations are founded in or intimately connected with duties under the agreement. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html)\n\n## B. Assignment boundary\n\nAn assignee’s arbitration claim presents at least three independent questions:\n\n1. **Underlying formation:** Did the consumer assent to the arbitration provision?\n2. **Transfer:** Did the assignment convey the contract right and arbitration benefit?\n3. **Account linkage:** Was this consumer account among the transferred rights?\n\nEven where an arbitration clause uses terms such as “assigns,” “successors,” “related parties,” or “servicers,” the moving party must authenticate and interpret that language and prove its qualifying status. A contract cannot confer rights on an entity that does not fit its terms.\n\nNo public Montana authority located in this pass establishes that every arbitration clause automatically follows every receivables assignment, or that a debt buyer may compel merely by producing a generic portfolio bill of sale.\n\n# IV. Judicial gateway and delegation\n\n## A. Decisionmaker matrix\n\n| Issue | Presumptive decisionmaker | Required evidence or challenge | Principal authority |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Was any arbitration agreement formed? | Court | Contract, assent, signatures or electronic attribution, consideration | MCA §27-5-115; *Peeler*; *Bluebird* |\n| Which of two agreements controls? | Court | Contract sequence, merger, supersession, forum clauses | *Coinbase v. Suski* |\n| Is the moving party entitled to invoke it? | Court | Assignment, agency, beneficiary, estoppel, assumption | *Arthur Andersen*; *Peeler* |\n| Does the clause cover the claim? | Court absent valid delegation | Clause text and pleaded claim | *Bluebird*; *Peeler* |\n| Was arbitrability clearly delegated? | Court | Delegation text and incorporation evidence | *Bluebird*; *Ossello* |\n| Is the delegation clause itself unconscionable, fraudulent, or unformed? | Court when specifically challenged | Challenge directed to delegation provision | *Rent-A-Center* |\n| Is the contract as a whole illegal or fraudulent? | Arbitrator after valid arbitration/delegation gateway | Whole-contract rather than clause-specific challenge | *Peeler*; separability doctrine |\n| Is contractual arbitration notice timely? | Ordinarily arbitrator | Contractual demand, notice, laches, timeliness | *Peeler* |\n| Has litigation conduct waived arbitration? | Court | Pleadings, discovery, delay, inconsistent acts | *Peeler*; *Monarch*; *Morgan* |\n| Did a party default by refusing to pay or participate? | Court may decide effect on compel/stay; administrator/arbitrator administers rule consequences | Fee allocation, invoices, notices, administrator orders | FAA §3; AAA R-56; *Brown*; *Sink* |\n| Are merits weak or bad faith? | Arbitrator | Merits record | MCA §27-5-115(5) bars denial on that ground |\n| Which AAA rule version applies administratively? | AAA initially, arbitrator finally under current R-1/R-8 | Actual incorporated clause and filing date | AAA Consumer Rules |\n| Does that AAA rule determine judicial delegation? | Court | Clear incorporation and assent under governing contract law | *Bluebird* |\n\n## B. Formation remains judicial\n\nMCA §27-5-115 expressly requires the District Court to determine a denied agreement’s existence summarily. Montana and federal decisions treat contract formation as a judicial gateway because arbitration derives from consent. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0150/0270-0050-0010-0150.html)\n\nIf material facts are genuinely disputed, the Montana court may receive affidavits, declarations, documents, and testimony in the statutory summary proceeding. When a Rule 12 motion relies on outside material, Rule 12(d) can convert it into a summary-judgment posture, and the parties must receive an adequate opportunity to present pertinent evidence. *Bluebird II* applied that rule and placed the summary-judgment burden on the movant when the District Court considered outside evidence. [Judicial Document Service+1](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401)\n\n## C. Delegation must be clear and unmistakable\n\nMontana’s current rule is particularly important for consumer contracts:\n\n- “Any and all disputes” does not alone delegate arbitrability.\n- An agreement to have AAA administer a matter does not necessarily incorporate R-7 for judicial gateway purposes.\n- A fee reference to AAA rules is insufficient.\n- An express incorporation of the entire rules may present stronger evidence, but the court still must determine formation and which contract controls. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html)\n\nCurrent AAA R-7 purports to give the arbitrator power over existence, scope, validity, and arbitrability. R-1 also says AAA Consumer Rules are deemed incorporated when a consumer agreement provides for AAA arbitration and that the rules in effect when filing requirements are met may apply. Those private rules operate within AAA administration; they do not replace the court’s task of determining whether the parties actually incorporated them or clearly delegated the judicial gateway. [American Arbitration Association+1](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n## D. Specific delegation challenge versus whole-contract challenge\n\n### Court branch\n\nThe court decides a challenge such as:\n\n- “I never agreed to delegate arbitrability.”\n- “The delegation clause was hidden in a document never provided.”\n- “The delegation sentence itself is unconscionably one-sided.”\n- “The person who clicked was unauthorized.”\n- “The later agreement superseded the earlier delegation.”\n- “The purported assignee was not transferred the delegation right.”\n\n### Arbitrator branch after gateway\n\nIf a valid delegation exists and remains unchallenged specifically, the arbitrator ordinarily decides:\n\n- Whether the overall contract is illegal.\n- Whether the whole contract was fraudulently induced.\n- Whether the underlying fees violated law.\n- Whether the claim falls within a delegated scope question.\n- Whether the demand complied with contract arbitration deadlines.\n\n*Rent-A-Center* treats the delegation provision as severable, while *Coinbase v. Suski* preserves the court’s role where contract formation or supersession must first be determined. [GovInfo+1](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf)\n\n## E. Separability does not prove formation\n\nSeparability means an arbitration clause can survive an attack on the larger contract. It does not mean:\n\n- A nonexistent contract can be arbitrated.\n- An unauthorized signature binds the named person.\n- An assignee can skip ownership proof.\n- A clause in a superseded agreement controls.\n- A court must accept the drafter’s version of the contract.\n\n# V. Montana court procedure to compel or stay\n\n## A. Montana statutory process\n\n| Step | Montana requirement | Qualification |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Application | Made by motion | MCA §27-5-321 |\n| Initial notice | Served like a summons unless parties agreed otherwise | Not merely ordinary Rule 5 mail or email |\n| Court | District Court | MUAA text assigns the compel/stay decision to District Court |\n| Pending action | Application made in the pending court only if it has §115 jurisdiction | Justice/City coordination unresolved |\n| Existence denied | Court summarily determines the dispute | Evidence or testimony may be required |\n| Agreement found | Court orders arbitration | Merit weakness is not a refusal ground |\n| No agreement found | Application denied; threatened arbitration may be stayed | Bona fide dispute tried summarily |\n| Litigation issue arbitrable | Action or severable issue must be stayed upon formal order/application | Private demand is not the statutory application |\n| Arbitrator appointment failure | District Court appoints | Contractual method followed first |\n| Initial application venue | Contractual Montana hearing county, actual hearing county, adverse party residence/business, or any county if none | Montana-resident venue clause has state-location restriction |\n| Appeal | Denial to compel or grant of stay of arbitration appealable | No express interlocutory appeal from grant to compel |\n\n### State venue qualification\n\nMCA §27-5-323 says a venue agreement involving a Montana resident is invalid unless the arbitration is required to occur in Montana, subject to a counsel-advice waiver evidenced by counsel’s signature. The provision is current on the statutory page. Whether and to what extent the FAA preempts that resident-protective location rule in an interstate consumer agreement was not resolved by a controlling public authority located here. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0230/0270-0050-0030-0230.html)\n\n## B. Montana answer and motion timing\n\nArbitration and award are affirmative defenses under Montana Rule 8. Rule 12 requires an answer within 21 days after service unless another rule, statute, or court order applies. Rule 12 automatically alters that period only for motions “under this rule.” A statutory §27-5-115 application is not automatically transformed into a Rule 12 motion merely because the movant labels it a motion to compel. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html)\n\nPossible procedural branches include:\n\n- A combined Rule 12 motion and §27-5-115 application.\n- A separate motion to compel plus a motion for stay or extension.\n- Assertion in the answer followed by a later compel motion.\n- A standalone District Court application before any merits action.\n\nThe exact effect on the answer deadline depends on the filing’s procedural basis and the court’s order. Negotiation, an administrator demand, a consumer complaint, an FDCPA validation dispute, or a private notice of intent to arbitrate does not independently alter the court’s deadline.\n\nUniform District Court Rule 2 generally requires a supporting brief, gives an opposing party 14 days after service to file an answer brief, and gives the movant 14 days for a reply, subject to local rule or court order. Oral argument is discretionary. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0190/part_0010/section_0020/0250-0190-0010-0020.html)\n\n## C. Justice, City, and Municipal Court crossover\n\nThe MUAA’s compel/stay provisions refer to the **District Court**. No current primary authority found in this focused pass conclusively explains the complete coordination where the collection action is pending in Justice, City, or Municipal Court. Possible procedural questions include:\n\n- Whether the limited court pauses the case while a District Court §27-5-115 application proceeds.\n- Whether transfer or another statutory route is required.\n- Which court controls interim discovery or answer deadlines.\n- How a later District Court compel order is entered in the limited-court action.\n\nThose questions remain unresolved; a private arbitration demand should not be treated as automatically divesting the limited court of authority.\n\n## D. Federal court process\n\nFAA §4 requires:\n\n- A written arbitration agreement.\n- A failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate.\n- An independent federal jurisdictional basis.\n- Five days’ written notice.\n- Service under the Federal Rules.\n- A hearing.\n- A summary trial if formation or refusal is genuinely in issue.\n- A jury determination if properly and timely demanded under §4. [U.S. Code](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/)\n\nFAA §3 requires a federal stay on application once the court is satisfied the issue is arbitrable and the applicant is not “in default” in proceeding with arbitration. *Spizzirri* holds that the federal court may not dismiss instead when a stay is requested. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/)\n\n# VI. Appeal and interim-stay matrix\n\n| Order or event | Montana MUAA | Federal FAA |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Denial of compel motion | Immediately appealable under §27-5-324(1)(a) | Immediately appealable under §16(a)(1)(B) |\n| Refusal to stay litigation | Not separately enumerated in §27-5-324 as such | Immediately appealable under §16(a)(1)(A) |\n| Grant of stay of arbitration | Immediately appealable under Montana §324(1)(b) | Injunction against FAA arbitration may be appealable under §16(a)(2) |\n| Grant of compel motion | No express Montana interlocutory appeal listed | Generally no immediate appeal under §16(b)(2) |\n| Grant of litigation stay | No express MUAA interlocutory appeal listed | Generally no immediate appeal under §16(b)(1) |\n| Final arbitration-related decision | Judgment/order rules apply | Appealable under §16(a)(3) |\n| Appeal from federal denial of arbitration | State automatic-stay rule not established | Nonfrivolous appeal automatically stays District Court merits proceedings under *Bielski* |\n| Appeal from Montana denial | Automatic stay not established in reviewed authority | Montana appellate/stay rules require separate analysis |\n\nAward confirmation, modification, vacatur, judgment, and enforcement are later components and are not completed here.\n\n# VII. Formation, notice, unconscionability, and substantive defenses\n\n## A. Formation and assent\n\nMontana requires:\n\n- Parties capable of contracting.\n- Free, mutual, communicated consent.\n- Agreement on the same thing in the same sense.\n- Lawful object.\n- Consideration. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html)\n\nFor a consumer-credit arbitration provision, material evidence may include:\n\n- The operative agreement version.\n- Account-opening or application records.\n- Signature or electronic attribution.\n- Terms displayed at assent.\n- Incorporation text.\n- Delivery or accessibility of incorporated rules.\n- Account use following disclosure.\n- Amendment and opt-out notices.\n- Opt-out records.\n- Any superseding agreement.\n- Assignment records tying the agreement to the plaintiff.\n\nNo single item is universally conclusive.\n\n## B. No universal wet-ink, initial, or oral-explanation rule\n\n*Lenz* identifies relevant totality factors, including bargaining power, opportunity to negotiate, conspicuousness, explanation, sophistication, counsel, duress, and separate signing or initialing. It expressly rejects the notion that Montana always requires special explanation and initialing. [Justia Law+3](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html)\n\nThe FAA preempts a state requirement aimed uniquely at arbitration. *Doctor’s Associates v. Casarotto* invalidated Montana’s former first-page, underlined-capital-letter requirement because it did not place arbitration agreements on equal footing. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf)\n\nThe Ninth Circuit’s *Mortensen* decision similarly held that an arbitration-targeted Montana reasonable-expectations/fundamental-rights rule was preempted to the extent it disproportionately invalidated arbitration provisions. Montana’s later *Lenz* decision clarified that no universal explanation-and-initialing rule had actually been adopted. [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+2](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf)\n\n## C. Conflicting terms and supersession\n\nThe 2026 *Bluebird* decision is the clearest recent Montana authority. The loan documents repeatedly and conspicuously required nonjury judicial resolution while separately allowing a party to elect arbitration. The Court held the documents ambiguous and concluded there was no knowing, voluntary, and intelligent assent to arbitration. [Judicial Document Service+1](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401)\n\nThe holding does not create a rule that every contract containing both a jury waiver and arbitration clause is invalid. Material questions include:\n\n- Whether the provisions can be reconciled.\n- Whether arbitration is mandatory or elective.\n- Whether the judicial language is expressly subordinate to arbitration.\n- Whether one agreement superseded another.\n- Whether the arbitration provision was incorporated into all related documents.\n- Whether the consumer received and assented to each document.\n\n*Coinbase v. Suski* independently requires a court to resolve which contract governs where competing agreements answer the arbitrability question differently. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf)\n\n## D. Unconscionability and one-sidedness\n\nMontana recognizes generally applicable unconscionability and public-policy defenses. Adhesion alone is not enough; the challenged provision must also unreasonably favor the stronger party or oppress the weaker party under the applicable test. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html)\n\n### Extreme one-sided branch\n\nThe dated, bounded *Ossello* holding invalidated an arrangement that let the drafting company litigate its principal claim while requiring the consumer to arbitrate all claims. This PASS-16 uses the previously checked PASS-14 pagination only: ¶¶40–41 at printed page 20/PDF index 19 and ¶¶42–43 at printed page 21/PDF index 20. No underlying provider-violation allegation is adopted.\n\n### Limited-carveout branch\n\n*Bucy* upheld a limited right to seek status-preserving injunctive relief pending arbitration. *Big Sky* held that mutuality does not require identical rights and upheld narrow intellectual-property and indemnity carveouts tied to the parties’ differing positions. [Justia Law+3](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html)\n\nThe operative inquiry is not simply “Does one side have any court remedy?” It is:\n\n- Which claims are carved out?\n- Who is most likely to bring those claims?\n- Does the drafter retain its principal collection remedy while the consumer loses every judicial remedy?\n- Is the carveout preliminary and status-preserving, or a final merits route?\n- Does another clause provide reciprocal access?\n- Is severability available?\n\n## E. Illegality and statutory violations\n\nA claim that the larger agreement contains illegal fees, lacks a required license, violates disclosure law, or is otherwise unenforceable does not automatically defeat the arbitration clause in court. If formation and delegation are valid and the challenge is not aimed specifically at the arbitration or delegation provision, separability may send the issue to the arbitrator. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html)\n\nBut the following remain judicial gateway issues:\n\n- No agreement existed.\n- The signer lacked authority.\n- The clause was not provided or incorporated.\n- The arbitration provision itself has an illegal object.\n- The delegation provision itself is unconscionable.\n- The alleged assignee lacks any contractual right to invoke it.\n- A later agreement superseded it.\n\n## F. Class and collective proceedings\n\nThe FAA does not permit class arbitration based merely on silence or ambiguity because class arbitration fundamentally differs from bilateral arbitration. *Lamps Plus* requires an actual contractual basis and holds that ambiguity alone is insufficient. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf)\n\n*Concepcion* prevents applying a state doctrine that conditions enforcement of consumer arbitration on the availability of classwide procedures where that doctrine interferes with the FAA’s objectives. This does not excuse proof of assent to an individual-arbitration or class-waiver provision. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf)\n\nNo actual Montana consumer-debt clause was supplied, so this pass does not determine:\n\n- Whether the contract bans class litigation, class arbitration, or both.\n- Whether the class language was incorporated.\n- Whether a statutory claim has a nonwaivable public-injunction or representative component.\n- Whether a severability clause saves the remaining agreement.\n\n## G. Statutory-remedy waiver\n\nArbitrating a statutory claim and waiving the statute’s substantive remedy are different.\n\n*CompuCredit* holds that CROA claims may be arbitrated because CROA contains no contrary congressional command. It does not authorize a clause that eliminates a consumer’s substantive CROA damages, attorney-fee rights, or statutory protections. [Library of Congress Tile+1](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf)\n\nA clause stating “all claims must be arbitrated” and a clause stating “the consumer may recover no statutory damages or attorney fees” therefore require separate analysis.\n\n## H. Montana Part 20 DMP boundary\n\nA Montana DMP must state how disputes will be resolved, cannot contain a jury-trial waiver, and cannot cause the consumer to waive Part 20 rights. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html)\n\nPossible branches:\n\n1. **FAA does not apply:** Montana’s statutory restrictions may control directly.\n2. **FAA applies:** Application of the jury-waiver prohibition as an arbitration prohibition may raise preemption under *Casarotto* and *Concepcion*.\n3. **Clause preserves all Part 20 remedies and merely selects a forum:** The antiwaiver issue differs from a clause eliminating statutory rights.\n4. **Clause expressly eliminates statutory relief:** The substantive-remedy waiver is independently material.\n\nNo controlling Montana appellate decision resolving these Part 20 branches was located.\n\n# VIII. Administrator rules, neutral protections, counsel, and fees\n\n## A. Montana statutory arbitration protections\n\n| Topic | Montana rule | Limit |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Arbitrator selection | Contract method followed; District Court appoints if method absent, fails, or vacancy unfilled | Neutral must comply with conflict-disclosure law |\n| Neutral disclosure | Potential conflicts and specified prior relationships/proceedings disclosed in writing within 10 days | Collective bargaining, SEC-approved arbitrations, and Montana Bar voluntary fee arbitration excluded |\n| Hearing notice | Personally or by certified mail at least five days before hearing unless agreement provides otherwise | Appearance waives notice |\n| Participation | Parties may be heard, present material evidence, and cross-examine appearing witnesses | Properly notified nonappearance does not prevent decision |\n| Counsel | Party has right to attorney; pre-proceeding waiver ineffective | Does not guarantee appointed or free counsel |\n| Fees/expenses | Unless agreement provides otherwise, arbitrator and proceeding expenses, excluding counsel fees, are paid as award provides | No numeric amount in statute |\n| Appointment failure | District Court appoints one or more arbitrators | Contractual method receives priority |\n\n## B. Current AAA Consumer Rules\n\nThe current public AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules are marked **amended and effective May 1, 2025**. Relevant provisions include:\n\n- R-1: applicable consumer rules and version.\n- R-5: answer and counterclaim process.\n- R-7: arbitrator jurisdiction.\n- R-10: declining or ceasing administration.\n- R-12: Consumer Clause Registry and due-process review.\n- R-56: nonpayment remedies.\n- R-57: sanctions.\n- Current fee schedule incorporated by external reference rather than stated in the rulebook. [American Arbitration Association+4](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\nAAA’s current rules state that a consumer agreement naming AAA can result in application of the Consumer Rules in effect when filing requirements are met, even when another AAA rule set is named. That is AAA’s administrative rule. The court must still determine whether the contract validly incorporated AAA administration and whether enforcing a later-amended version is consistent with the agreement and governing law. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\nAAA’s Registry review is expressly administrative and is not a legal opinion about enforceability. Presence or absence from the Registry does not alone establish that a consumer is bound or that a clause is invalid. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\nNo numeric AAA filing fee is stated in this report because:\n\n- The actual contract and rule version are unknown.\n- Fee schedules change.\n- Business and consumer allocations differ.\n- Waiver or hardship processes may apply.\n- The user requested no fabricated administrator fee.\n\nJAMS rules and fees were not researched because no actual agreement identified JAMS.\n\n# IX. Waiver, forfeiture, delay, and nonpayment\n\n## A. Federal FAA waiver\n\n*Morgan v. Sundance* rejects an arbitration-specific prejudice requirement. Federal waiver analysis ordinarily asks whether the right holder knowingly relinquished the right or acted inconsistently with it. The Court expressly left some questions about state law, forfeiture, estoppel, laches, and terminology unresolved. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf)\n\nPotentially inconsistent conduct can include:\n\n- Seeking a merits judgment.\n- Extensive merits discovery.\n- Litigating dispositive merits issues before invoking arbitration.\n- Requesting a jury and affirmative judicial relief without preserving arbitration.\n- Deliberately using litigation to test the opponent’s case.\n- Refusing a properly initiated arbitration and later demanding arbitration after suit.\n\nNo one act is necessarily dispositive without the full procedural record.\n\n## B. Montana MUAA waiver\n\nIn *Monarch*, the Montana Supreme Court majority applied:\n\n1. Knowledge of the right.\n2. Acts inconsistent with the right.\n3. Resulting prejudice.\n\nIt expressly declined to decide *Morgan*’s effect because all three existing Montana factors were satisfied. Thus, as of the latest reviewed Montana majority decision, the three-part test remains the controlling stated MUAA test in that case. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html)\n\nThe Chief Justice’s extended argument for removing prejudice appears in the dissent and cannot be stated as the holding. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html)\n\n### Conduct held sufficient in *Monarch*\n\nThe party:\n\n- Obtained the opponent’s consent to set aside default without disclosing its arbitration intent.\n- Filed an answer.\n- Filed counterclaims.\n- Requested a jury.\n- Initially omitted arbitration.\n- Delayed before moving to compel.\n\nThe Court affirmed waiver on that full record. It did not hold that filing any answer or counterclaim always waives arbitration. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html)\n\n### Conduct insufficient in *Peeler*\n\nPresuit settlement or mediation efforts and invocation at the first litigation appearance did not establish waiver. Contractual timeliness and notice questions were procedural arbitrability questions for the arbitrator. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html)\n\n## C. Pleading preservation\n\nMontana Rule 8 lists arbitration and award as an affirmative defense. Failure to plead it can create waiver issues, but *Monarch* confirms that procedural context matters, including amendment as of right. A party should not assume that silence in the initial answer is harmless or that pleading the defense alone prevents later conduct waiver. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html)\n\n## D. Nonpayment and administrator default\n\n### Current AAA rule consequences\n\nAfter unpaid fees:\n\n- Another party may advance payment.\n- A party may request participation restrictions.\n- A nonpayer cannot be barred from defending a claim or counterclaim.\n- The proceeding may be suspended.\n- The arbitrator or AAA may terminate it.\n- AAA may decline future consumer cases involving a nonpaying business.\n- A default award may not be entered merely as a sanction. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n### Judicial consequence\n\n*Brown v. Dillard’s* held, on the allegations assumed there, that a party refusing to participate in a properly initiated arbitration materially breached the agreement and could not later compel the claimant back into arbitration. The case involved employment and California contract law, so it supplies a federal comparative boundary rather than Montana consumer-debt law. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/)\n\n*Sink v. Aden* affirmed denial of a renewed arbitration demand where the party responsible for fees defaulted in the arbitration and the proceeding was canceled. It likewise arose in employment and Oregon federal litigation. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/)\n\nThe correct Montana consumer-debt analysis therefore requires:\n\n- Which rules controlled.\n- Which party owed which payment.\n- Whether a waiver or hardship request was available.\n- Whether payment was demanded and when.\n- Whether nonpayment was deliberate, impossible, disputed, or cured.\n- Whether AAA or an arbitrator suspended or terminated the case.\n- Whether the contract supplied a court fallback.\n- Whether the party seeking court relief had complied with its own obligations.\n\nOne unpaid invoice does not automatically produce waiver, forfeiture, breach, court litigation, or a merits judgment.\n\n# X. Actor–court–issue matrix\n\n| Issue | Court or arbitrator | Moving party’s initial burden | Potential order | Remaining gap |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Agreement formation | Court | Produce evidence of mutual assent and written clause | Compel, deny, or conduct summary trial | Actual contract and assent |\n| Which contract controls | Court | Establish sequence, merger, supersession, and relevant forum terms | Apply controlling contract | All versions and amendments |\n| Assignee right | Court | Prove transfer and account linkage | Permit or deny invocation | Purchase agreement and schedule |\n| Nonsignatory right | Court | Prove recognized state-law doctrine | Compel or deny | Agency, beneficiary, estoppel facts |\n| Claim scope | Court absent delegation | Clause and complaint | Compel covered claims; retain others | Actual claims and clause |\n| Delegation formation | Court | Clear and unmistakable delegation plus assent | Send arbitrability to arbitrator | Delegation language/version |\n| Specific delegation defense | Court | Evidence directed to delegation provision | Enforce or refuse delegation | Actual challenge |\n| Whole-contract illegality | Arbitrator after valid gateway | Valid arbitration/delegation agreement | Merits determination in arbitration | Contract and statutory theory |\n| Contract arbitration-demand timing | Arbitrator ordinarily | Actual demand, notice, contract deadlines | Procedural ruling | Notice and rule version |\n| Litigation-conduct waiver | Court | Federal or Montana waiver elements | Deny compel or enforce right | Governing act and complete docket |\n| Nonpayment default | Administrator/arbitrator initially; court may decide compel/stay consequence | Payment duty, demand, nonpayment, termination | Suspend, terminate, court fallback | Fee records and orders |\n| Formal Montana compel application | District Court | §27-5-114 agreement and refusal | Compel and stay | Proper service and evidence |\n| Montana stay of threatened arbitration | District Court | No arbitration agreement | Stay arbitration or order it to proceed | Formation facts |\n| Federal compel petition | U.S. District Court with independent jurisdiction | FAA agreement, refusal, jurisdiction | Compel; summary trial if needed | Federal jurisdiction |\n| Federal stay | U.S. District Court | Arbitrable issue and applicant not in default | Mandatory stay on request | Default/nonpayment |\n| State appeal | Montana Supreme Court under §324 categories | Appealable order and proper appellate procedure | Affirm, reverse, remand | Full appellate record |\n| Federal denial appeal | Federal court of appeals | §16(a) order | Automatic District Court stay if appeal nonfrivolous | Frivolity and appellate posture |\n\n# XI. Official forms, public rules, and instruction inventory\n\n| Resource | Full literal URL | Version or status | Purpose | Limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Montana Civil Forms | https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms | Current public landing page checked October 26, 2026 | Generic complaint, answer, motion, affidavit, response, reply, proposed order | No dedicated arbitration form identified; generic form does not prove entitlement |\n| Montana Motions page | https://courts.mt.gov/forms/motions | Current public page | District motion and response packets | Motion packet does not determine statutory service, stay, burden, or evidence |\n| Montana Uniform Arbitration Act | https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/parts_index.html | MCA 2025 Internet compilation | State arbitration statutes | Printed code controls if inconsistency; no complete 2026 special-session audit |\n| AAA Consumer Rules | https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf | Amended and effective May 1, 2025 | Consumer arbitration administration | Governs only if validly applicable; fee schedule external |\n| AAA Consumer Rules and Fees page | https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/ | Current public page checked October 26, 2026 | Current rules, fee schedule, forms | Administrator material, not judicial enforceability ruling |\n| AAA Consumer Clause Registry | Identified through AAA Rule R-12 and AAA site | Current administrative route | Due-process review and public registry | Registry status is not a legal opinion |\n| JAMS consumer rules | Not read | — | — | No actual agreement identified JAMS |\n| Contract-specific card or lender arbitration rules | Not supplied | — | Actual governing process | Must obtain exact incorporated version before conclusion |\n\nThe Montana Judicial Branch describes a motion as a formal request made during a case and states that a motion does not begin a lawsuit. No Montana court-approved “motion to compel consumer-debt arbitration” form was identified. [Montana Courts+1](https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms)\n\n# XII. Bounded workflows and examples\n\nThese examples use hypothetical facts only. They do not establish an actual contract, assignee right, administrator, filing deadline, stay, waiver, or outcome.\n\n## Example 1 — Contested formation\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Creditor produces monthly statements referencing online terms.\n- Consumer denies receiving or assenting to the arbitration provision.\n- Creditor produces no signed application, click record, delivery evidence, or account-opening agreement.\n- The clause includes a delegation sentence.\n\n**Analysis**\n\n1. The court first decides whether an arbitration or delegation agreement was formed.\n2. The delegation sentence does not delegate the antecedent formation question.\n3. The court may conduct the summary determination required by MCA §27-5-115.\n4. If the creditor cannot establish mutual assent, neither arbitration nor delegation is compelled.\n5. Account use may be relevant, but no conclusion follows without the terms presented and conduct showing assent.\n\nA monthly statement that merely says “see online terms” is not assumed sufficient.\n\n## Example 2 — Assignee with arbitration clause but account-link gap\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Debt buyer produces the original creditor’s form card agreement containing arbitration.\n- It produces a generic bill of sale.\n- The account-level schedule is absent.\n- Buyer’s own spreadsheet lists the consumer.\n\n**Analysis**\n\nThe court must distinguish:\n\n- Whether the consumer accepted the form agreement.\n- Whether that version governed the account.\n- Whether the bill of sale transferred arbitration rights.\n- Whether this account was included in the transferred portfolio.\n\nThe arbitration clause does not cure the account-link gap. The generic bill of sale does not prove formation. The buyer’s internal spreadsheet does not automatically authenticate the seller’s transfer schedule.\n\n**Held result:** compel application cannot be approved or denied categorically without the missing linkage and foundation evidence.\n\n## Example 3 — Specific delegation challenge versus whole-contract defense\n\n**Delegation-specific branch**\n\nConsumer alleges:\n\n“The sentence delegating enforceability was inserted in a later version I never received, and it permits only the business to select the decisionmaker.”\n\nThe court decides formation and enforceability of that delegation provision.\n\n**Whole-contract branch**\n\nConsumer alleges:\n\n“The entire debt-relief contract is illegal because the provider charged unlawful fees.”\n\nIf a valid delegation agreement exists and is not specifically challenged, the arbitrator ordinarily decides the whole-contract illegality issue.\n\n**No formation branch**\n\nConsumer alleges:\n\n“I never signed, clicked, authorized, or received any agreement.”\n\nThe court decides formation; separability does not create a contract.\n\n## Example 4 — Court suit and compel motion without a stay order\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Collection suit is filed in Montana District Court.\n- Defendant sends counsel a letter demanding arbitration.\n- Defendant also opens an AAA file.\n- No §27-5-115 motion has been filed.\n- The answer date approaches.\n\n**Result**\n\nThe letter and AAA filing do not themselves alter the state-court answer deadline or produce a judicial stay.\n\nA formal §27-5-115 application can trigger Montana’s stay provision. The defendant still must use a procedurally recognized filing or obtain a court order where necessary. If the compel request is filed only as a statutory motion rather than a Rule 12 motion, Rule 12’s automatic answer-period alteration is not assumed.\n\nNo exact date is calculated because service, filing, local rules, and order dates are absent.\n\n## Example 5 — Rules incorporated, version unknown\n\n**Contract language**\n\n“Disputes will be administered by the AAA under its applicable rules.”\n\n**Facts**\n\n- No rules are attached.\n- Contract does not identify a date or edition.\n- AAA’s current R-1 says the Consumer Rules in effect at filing may apply.\n- Current R-7 delegates jurisdiction to the arbitrator.\n\n**Analysis**\n\nAAA may administratively apply its May 1, 2025 Consumer Rules. But under *Bluebird*, this language does not automatically prove a clear-and-unmistakable judicial delegation.\n\nThe court must determine:\n\n- Whether AAA rules were incorporated.\n- Whether the contract was a consumer agreement under R-1.\n- Whether a later rule version may bind the consumer.\n- Whether another contract superseded the clause.\n- Whether delegation was clear to the parties.\n\nNo current fee or filing amount is assumed.\n\n## Example 6 — Litigation-conduct waiver\n\n### FAA branch\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Creditor knows of arbitration.\n- It litigates merits for months.\n- It seeks a merits ruling and takes extensive discovery.\n- It then moves to compel.\n\nUnder *Morgan*, prejudice is not a required federal waiver element. The focus is knowing relinquishment or intentionally inconsistent conduct.\n\n### Montana MUAA branch\n\nUnder the majority’s current *Monarch* formulation, the opposing party bears the burden of showing knowledge, inconsistent acts, and prejudice. Whether *Morgan* ultimately changes that MUAA test remains unresolved because *Monarch* expressly declined the question.\n\n### No-waiver branch\n\nPresuit negotiation, mediation, or an immediate first-appearance motion to compel resembles *Peeler* and is not automatically inconsistent.\n\n## Example 7 — Consumer fee claim and arbitrability\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Consumer alleges a provider collected a prohibited $500 fee.\n- Contract contains a broad arbitration clause.\n- Provider argues the fee claim must be arbitrated.\n- Consumer does not contest contract formation but argues the fee made the whole contract illegal.\n\n**Branch A — no valid delegation**\n\nThe court determines whether the claim falls within the arbitration clause. If it does, the fee merits ordinarily go to the arbitrator.\n\n**Branch B — valid delegation**\n\nThe arbitrator determines scope and whole-contract illegality.\n\n**Branch C — specific clause challenge**\n\nIf the consumer alleges the arbitration clause itself requires the consumer to pay prohibitive unlawful costs or eliminates a statutory remedy, the court analyzes that specific defense unless validly delegated.\n\nThe receipt or arithmetic of the $500 does not establish assent, legality, earning, or recoverability.\n\n## Example 8 — Statutory remedy waiver\n\n**Clause A**\n\n“All CROA claims must be arbitrated, but the arbitrator may award every remedy authorized by CROA.”\n\n*CompuCredit* supports arbitrability absent another formation or contract defense.\n\n**Clause B**\n\n“The consumer waives all statutory damages, attorney fees, and public-law remedies.”\n\nThat is a substantive-remedy-waiver issue, not merely forum selection. Enforceability depends on the statute, severability, prospective-waiver doctrine, and applicable contract law.\n\nNo conclusion is reached without the actual clause.\n\n## Example 9 — Administrator nonpayment\n\n**Facts**\n\n- AAA requests the business’s allocated share.\n- Consumer paid the amount assigned to the consumer.\n- Business disputes responsibility and pays nothing.\n- AAA sends notices, suspends, and later terminates in a signed or written determination.\n\n**Possible consequences**\n\n- AAA R-56 permits suspension or termination.\n- Consumer may seek a court route under R-10.\n- The business may face a material-breach or FAA-default argument under *Brown* or *Sink*.\n- Court outcome depends on the contract, allocation, notices, hardship provisions, and governing law.\n\n**Different branch**\n\nA payment is one day late and cured before suspension. That fact does not automatically establish waiver or material breach.\n\n## Example 10 — Montana DMP jury-waiver conflict\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Covered Montana DMP contains mandatory arbitration.\n- It also states that the consumer waives jury trial.\n- MCA §30-14-2010(5) prohibits a jury-trial waiver.\n- Transaction uses interstate telephone and banking channels.\n\n**Held questions**\n\n- Does FAA §2 cover the transaction?\n- Is the statute being applied to arbitration specifically or to all jury waivers?\n- Can the offending wording be severed?\n- Does arbitration preserve Part 20 statutory remedies?\n- Was there knowing assent?\n- Does §30-14-2013 independently bar a substantive-right waiver?\n\nNo valid/invalid conclusion is made without a controlling preemption analysis and actual contract.\n\n# XIII. PASS-16 source register\n\n**Fresh access date unless otherwise stated:** October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC.\n**Exact individual source-fetch timestamps:** Not exposed and not asserted.\n\n| Source ID | Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint | Version/status and actual read bounds |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P16-S001** | **Montana Uniform Arbitration Act — validity, compel/stay, and neutral disclosure**, Montana Legislature. §27-5-114: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html; §27-5-115: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0150/0270-0050-0010-0150.html; §27-5-116: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0160/0270-0050-0010-0160.html. | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML read.** Complete materially relevant subsections read. No complete post-2025 special-session audit. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S002** | **Montana arbitration proceeding protections**, Montana Legislature. §27-5-211: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html; §27-5-213: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0130/0270-0050-0020-0130.html; §27-5-214: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0140/0270-0050-0020-0140.html; §27-5-218: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0180/0270-0050-0020-0180.html. | **Fresh direct official HTML read.** Appointment, hearing, counsel, and fees provisions read in full. [Montana Code Annotated+3](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S003** | **Montana court applications, jurisdiction, venue, and appeals**, Montana Legislature. §27-5-321: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html; §322: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0220/0270-0050-0030-0220.html; §323: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0230/0270-0050-0030-0230.html; §324: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0240/0270-0050-0030-0240.html. | **Fresh direct official HTML read.** Current published text; FAA preemption of §323’s Montana-location rule unresolved. [Montana Code Annotated+3](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S004** | **Montana general contract law**, Montana Legislature. §28-2-102: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html; §28-2-301: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0010/0280-0020-0030-0010.html; §28-2-303: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0030/0280-0020-0030-0030.html; §28-3-102: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0030-0010-0020.html. | **Fresh direct official HTML read.** Essential elements, mutual consent, and default contract-law selection only; full conflicts dossier excluded. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S005** | **Montana pleading and motion rules**, Montana Legislature. Rule 8: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html; Rule 12: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0120/0250-0200-0030-0120.html; Uniform District Court Rule 2: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0190/part_0010/section_0020/0250-0190-0010-0020.html. | **Fresh direct official HTML read.** Used only for affirmative-defense, answer, motion, and briefing boundaries. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S006** | **Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act crossover**, Montana Legislature. §30-14-2010: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html; §30-14-2013: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0130/0300-0140-0200-0130.html. | **Fresh direct official HTML read for dispute-resolution, jury-waiver, and antiwaiver clauses only.** No whole Part 20 agreement report imported. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S007** | **Federal Arbitration Act**, U.S. House OLRC. §§1–4, 6, and 16: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/. | **Fresh direct official HTML read.** Text through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026. Chapter 4 sexual-assault/harassment provisions not developed because outside ordinary consumer-debt scope. [U.S. Code+3](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S008** | **AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures**, American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf. | **Fresh official 37-page PDF read.** Amended/effective May 1, 2025. R-1 printed p.6/PDF index 5; R-7 printed p.11/index 10; R-10 printed p.12/index 11; R-12 printed p.13/index 12; R-56–57 printed pp.27–28/indices 26–27. Fee schedule external and not numerically used. [American Arbitration Association+4](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S009** | ***Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC v. World Business Lenders, LLC*, 2024 MT 279**, full public Montana Supreme Court opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html. | **Fresh full opinion read.** Relied on ¶¶10–20. Secondary host of primary judicial opinion; no paid citator. Court decided gateway only and withheld enforceability and choice-of-law merits. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S010** | ***Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC v. World Business Lenders, LLC*, 2026 MT 33**, official Montana Supreme Court PDF. https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401. | **Fresh complete 15-page official PDF read and relevant pages visually inspected.** ¶¶13–27, printed pp.7–15/PDF indices 6–14; mutual-assent holding principally printed pp.10–15/indices 9–14. Decided February 24, 2026. [Judicial Document Service+3](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S011** | ***Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Canada, Inc.*, 2018 MT 297**, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html. | **Fresh full opinion read.** Relied on ¶¶12–23 and 44–50 for gateway, procedural arbitrability, waiver, and nonsignatory estoppel. Secondary host. [Justia Law+3](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S012** | ***Lenz v. FSC Securities Corp.*, 2018 MT 67**, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html. | **Fresh full opinion read.** Relied on ¶¶16–32 for contract formation, constitutional-waiver totality, unconscionability, and clarification that no universal explanation/initial requirement exists. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S013** | ***Bucy v. Edward Jones & Co.*, 2019 MT 173**, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html. | **Fresh full opinion read.** Relied on ¶¶26–35 for mutuality and limited injunctive carveout. Securities/employment context. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S014** | ***Big Sky Vacation Rentals, Inc. v. PointCentral, LLC*, 2019 MT 288**, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html. | **Fresh full opinion read.** Relied on majority ¶¶17–22; dissent not treated as holding. Business contract context. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S015** | ***Monarch Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Petra, Inc.*, 2025 MT 184**, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html. | **Fresh full opinion read.** Majority ¶¶1–14; dissent ¶¶15 onward separately identified. Majority applied three-factor waiver and declined *Morgan* question. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S016** | ***Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Ossello*, 2016 MT 50**. https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/2016-da-15-0301.pdf?ts=1456956123. | **Dated bounded reuse from reviewed PASS-14, not a new full reread.** ¶20 printed p.9/PDF index 8; ¶27 p.12/index 11; ¶31 p.14/index 13; ¶¶40–41 p.20/index 19; ¶¶42–43 p.21/index 20. Underlying statutory merits not adopted. |\n| **S_MT-P16-S017** | ***Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson*, 513 U.S. 265 (1995)**. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-513/pdf/USREPORTS-513-265.pdf. | **Fresh official U.S. Reports PDF read.** Commerce holding, syllabus printed pp.265–267/PDF indices 0–2 and opinion portions following. |\n| **S_MT-P16-S018** | ***Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto*, 517 U.S. 681 (1996)**. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf. | **Fresh official nine-page U.S. Reports PDF read.** Montana arbitration-specific notice requirement preempted; relevant printed pp.686–688/PDF indices 5–7. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S019** | ***AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion*, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)**. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf. | **Fresh official 35-page U.S. Reports PDF read.** Relevant equal-footing and class-procedure discussion printed pp.339–352/PDF indices 6–19. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S020** | ***Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson*, 561 U.S. 63 (2010)**. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf. | **Fresh official 26-page U.S. Reports PDF read.** Syllabus printed pp.63–65/PDF indices 0–2; delegation holding in opinion printed pp.68–76/indices 5–13. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S021** | ***Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.*, 586 U.S. 63 (2019)**. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf. | **Fresh official ten-page U.S. Reports PDF read.** Syllabus printed pp.63–65/PDF indices 0–2; no “wholly groundless” exception. [GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S022** | ***Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski*, 602 U.S. 143 (2024)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf. | **Fresh complete official 12-page PDF read and relevant page inspected.** Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion’s which-contract gateway at slip p.6/PDF index 7 and surrounding pp.4–9. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S023** | ***Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle*, 556 U.S. 624 (2009)**. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf. | **Fresh official 11-page U.S. Reports PDF read.** Traditional state-law nonsignatory doctrines at printed pp.630–632/PDF indices 6–8. [GovInfo+1](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S024** | ***Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.*, 596 U.S. 411 (2022)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf. | **Fresh complete official nine-page PDF read.** Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion pp.4–8/indices 4–8. Federal prejudice requirement rejected. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S025** | ***Smith v. Spizzirri*, 601 U.S. 472 (2024)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf. | **Fresh complete official eight-page PDF read.** Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion pp.2–7/indices 2–7. Requested FAA stay mandatory. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S026** | ***Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski*, 599 U.S. 736 (2023)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf. | **Fresh complete official 28-page PDF read.** Relied on majority holding that a nonfrivolous §16(a) appeal stays federal district proceedings. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S027** | ***CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood*, 565 U.S. 95 (2012)**. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf. | **Fresh official 23-page U.S. Reports PDF read.** Syllabus printed pp.95–97/PDF indices 0–2; majority holding printed pp.97–105/indices 2–10. [Library of Congress Tile+1](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S028** | ***Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela*, 587 U.S. 176 (2019)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf. | **Fresh official 49-page PDF read in relevant part and screenshots reviewed.** Syllabus p.1/PDF index 0; majority class-arbitration ambiguity holding at slip p.6/PDF index 8. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S029** | ***Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc.*, 430 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2005)**. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/. | **Fresh full opinion reproduction read.** Employment/California case; relied on material refusal-to-arbitrate holding, not old prejudice test. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S030** | ***Sink v. Aden Enterprises, Inc.*, 352 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2003)**. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/. | **Fresh full opinion reproduction read.** Employment/Oregon context; used only for FAA “default” after nonpayment. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S031** | ***Mortensen v. Bresnan Communications, LLC*, 722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013)**. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf. | **Fresh complete official 23-page PDF read.** Arbitration-specific Montana rule preemption discussion at slip pp.19–21/PDF indices 18–20. Read with Montana’s later *Lenz* clarification. [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+1](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf) |\n| **S_MT-P16-S032** | **Montana Judicial Branch Civil Forms and Motions pages**. https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms; https://courts.mt.gov/forms/motions. | **Fresh official pages read.** Generic motion, affidavit, proposed-order, response, and reply resources identified. No dedicated arbitration form found. Individual contract or local-court packet not reviewed. [Montana Courts+1](https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms) |\n\n# XIV. PASS-16 claim register\n\n| Claim ID | Precise claim | Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P16-C001** | Montana generally validates written arbitration agreements subject to grounds applicable to revocation of contracts. | S001, §27-5-114(1)–(2). **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C002** | MUAA §27-5-114(2) excludes specified predispute agreements, including individual acquisition-of-property/services/money/credit contracts with total consideration ≤ $5,000. | S001. **High textual conclusion; FAA displacement unresolved.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C003** | FAA §2 applies to written arbitration agreements in contracts evidencing transactions involving commerce. | S007 §2; S017. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C004** | The FAA places arbitration clauses on equal footing and preempts arbitration-specific state obstacles. | S018–S019, S031. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C005** | FAA coverage does not arise solely from the contract’s label; actual commerce and statutory exclusions matter. | S007 §§1–2; S017. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C006** | Montana contract formation requires capable parties, mutual communicated consent, lawful object, and consideration. | S004. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C007** | A court decides whether an arbitration agreement was formed. | S001 §115; S010–S012. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C008** | A court decides which contract governs when competing contracts conflict over arbitrability. | S022. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C009** | Scope is judicial absent a valid clear-and-unmistakable delegation. | S009; S016 dated reuse. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C010** | Broad “any or all disputes” language alone did not delegate arbitrability in *Bluebird*. | S009 ¶¶13–15. **High, contract-specific.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C011** | Tenuous AAA references and administration language did not clearly delegate in *Bluebird/Ossello*. | S009 ¶¶16–18; S016. **High for those clauses.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C012** | Express incorporation of complete administrator rules remains fact-sensitive and was not categorically resolved for all consumers. | S009 ¶18; S008 R-1/R-7. **High bounded conclusion.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C013** | AAA R-7 gives the arbitrator jurisdictional power only when those rules validly govern. | S008 R-7. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C014** | A specific challenge to a delegation provision is judicial; a whole-agreement challenge ordinarily goes to the arbitrator after valid delegation. | S020. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C015** | A valid delegation cannot be rejected as wholly groundless. | S021. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C016** | Separability does not permit an arbitrator to decide whether any agreement was formed. | S010–S012, S020, S022. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C017** | Contractual arbitration notice, timeliness, laches, and similar procedural conditions ordinarily go to the arbitrator. | S011 ¶¶19–20. **High, absent contract-specific exception.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C018** | Litigation-conduct waiver remains a judicial gateway. | S011 ¶¶22–23; S015; S024. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C019** | An assignee must establish transfer of the contractual right and account linkage before invoking arbitration. | S004, S009–S011, S023. **High structural conclusion; actual documents held.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C020** | A generic debt sale, servicing role, or account possession does not alone establish arbitration rights. | Same sources. **High boundary.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C021** | Nonsignatories may invoke arbitration only through recognized generally applicable contract doctrines. | S011 ¶¶44–50; S023. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C022** | *Peeler* recognizes equitable estoppel for substantially interdependent misconduct intimately connected with the contract. | S011 ¶¶47–50. **High, narrow and fact-specific.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C023** | A Montana compel/stay application is made to District Court, and denied existence is summarily determined. | S001 §115; S003 §321. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C024** | Initial notice of a Montana arbitration court application must be served like a summons unless the parties agreed otherwise. | S003 §321. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C025** | A formal §115 application or order requires stay of the arbitrable action or severable issue. | S001 §115(4). **High textual conclusion.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C026** | A private demand letter, settlement discussion, or administrator filing is not itself the §115 court application. | S001, S003. **High boundary.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C027** | Arbitration is an affirmative defense under Montana Rule 8. | S005 Rule 8(c). **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C028** | A statutory motion to compel does not automatically alter the answer deadline unless Rule 12, another statute, or a court order does so. | S005 Rules 8, 12. **High procedural boundary.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C029** | Montana’s ordinary motion briefing defaults are generally 14 days for opposition and 14 days for reply, subject to court/local order. | S005 U.D.C. Rule 2. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C030** | FAA §4 requires independent federal jurisdiction, five days’ notice, and a summary trial when formation/refusal is genuinely disputed. | S007 §4. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C031** | Federal §3 requires a stay on application when the issue is arbitrable and the applicant is not in default. | S007 §3. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C032** | A federal court must stay rather than dismiss when a §3 stay is requested. | S025. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C033** | Montana and federal arbitration appeal statutes favor immediate review of denials, not interlocutory grants to compel. | S003 §324; S007 §16. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C034** | A nonfrivolous federal appeal from denial of arbitration automatically stays federal District Court proceedings. | S026. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C035** | No equivalent automatic Montana state appellate stay was established in the reviewed authorities. | S003, bounded search. **Qualified negative.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C036** | Montana does not require every arbitration clause to be separately initialed or orally explained. | S012. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C037** | Arbitration-specific notice/form rules are preempted under FAA equal-footing principles. | S018–S019; S031. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C038** | Conflicting arbitration and judicial-resolution provisions can prevent mutual assent. | S010 ¶¶17–27. **High, document-specific.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C039** | One-sided litigation carveouts are not categorically invalid; extent and function matter. | S013–S014 and S016. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C040** | Extreme retention of the drafter’s principal judicial remedy while forcing the consumer to arbitrate can be unconscionable or lack mutuality. | S016 dated reuse. **High for *Ossello* facts.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C041** | Limited status-preserving injunction and indemnity carveouts were upheld in *Bucy* and *Big Sky*. | S013–S014. **High for those business contracts.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C042** | Whole-contract illegality does not automatically invalidate the arbitration provision judicially. | S011, S020. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C043** | Formation, assignment, supersession, and specific clause or delegation illegality remain judicial. | S009–S012, S020, S022. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C044** | CROA claims are arbitrable absent a contrary congressional command. | S027. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C045** | Arbitrability of a statutory claim does not necessarily permit waiver of its substantive remedies. | S027. **High boundary; clause-specific.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C046** | Montana Part 20 prohibits a DMP jury waiver and waiver of Part 20 rights, but its precise interaction with the FAA is unresolved. | S006; S018–S019. **High text, unresolved preemption.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C047** | Class arbitration requires actual contractual consent and cannot rest merely on ambiguity. | S028. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C048** | FAA preemption can bar state doctrines that condition arbitration on availability of class procedures. | S019. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C049** | Federal arbitration waiver does not require prejudice after *Morgan*. | S024. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C050** | *Monarch*’s Montana majority applied knowledge, inconsistent conduct, and prejudice and declined to decide *Morgan*’s MUAA effect. | S015 ¶¶8–14. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C051** | *Monarch*’s no-prejudice discussion was in dissent, not the majority holding. | S015 ¶¶15 onward. **High provenance distinction.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C052** | Presuit negotiations and first-appearance invocation did not establish waiver in *Peeler*. | S011. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C053** | Seeking default relief, answering, counterclaiming, demanding a jury, and delaying supported waiver in *Monarch* on the whole record. | S015. **High, fact-specific.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C054** | Current AAA rules permit payment advancement, participation limits, suspension, termination, and future nonadministration after nonpayment. | S008 R-56. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C055** | AAA current rules do not permit preventing a nonpayer from defending a claim or entering a default award merely as a sanction. | S008 R-56–57. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C056** | Refusal or default in a properly initiated arbitration can defeat a later compel request, depending on contract and governing law. | S029–S030. **Moderate-high comparative authority; not Montana consumer-debt holding.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C057** | Montana neutral arbitrators have statutory disclosure obligations and parties have a nonwaivable preproceeding right to counsel. | S001 §116; S002 §§211, 214. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C058** | Montana arbitration hearing notice is generally personal or certified-mail notice at least five days before hearing, unless agreement provides otherwise. | S002 §213. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C059** | Montana statutory arbitration fees and expenses are paid as the award provides unless the agreement provides otherwise; counsel fees are excluded from that clause. | S002 §218. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C060** | AAA clause review or Registry status is administrative, not a legal enforceability opinion. | S008 R-12. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C061** | No dedicated current Montana court-approved motion-to-compel-arbitration form was identified. | S032. **Bounded search result only.** |\n| **S_MT-P16-C062** | No actual contract, rule version, assignment, administrator record, fee allocation, or litigation docket was established here. | All sources. **High provenance limit.** |\n\n# XV. Granular coverage and gap table\n\n| Assigned issue | Status | Claim IDs | Exact missing evidence or next action |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| FAA transaction-in-commerce scope | Answered in legal framework | C003–C005 | Actual parties, channels, performance, funding, servicing, and communications |\n| FAA §1 exclusion | Answered as bounded exception | C005 | Actual employment/transportation-worker status |\n| MUAA written agreement validity | Answered | C001 | Actual agreement and defenses |\n| MUAA $5,000 consumer exception | Answered textually | C002 | FAA coverage/preemption and total-consideration facts |\n| Existing-controversy agreement | Answered textually | C001–C002 | Actual postdispute agreement |\n| State/federal preemption | Answered structurally | C003–C005, C037 | Clause- and rule-specific application |\n| Montana choice of law | Partial | S004 | Actual clause, scope, formation, performance, and public policy |\n| Original creditor bound | Answered in framework | C006–C007 | Operative agreement and account |\n| Assignee/debt buyer bound | Partial | C019–C020 | Transfer language, schedule, account linkage |\n| Servicer/agent | Partial | C020–C022 | Agency and enforcement authority |\n| Trustee/beneficiary | Partial | C021–C022 | Trust/beneficiary documents |\n| Affiliate | Partial | C021–C022 | Agency, estoppel, alter ego, or beneficiary facts |\n| Consumer assent | Answered in doctrine | C006–C007, C036–C038 | Signature/click/use/delivery evidence |\n| Electronic assent | Partial | C006–C007 | Electronic transaction and attribution record |\n| Rules incorporated by reference | Partial | C011–C013 | Exact clause, rule set, availability, version |\n| Formation decisionmaker | Answered | C007–C008 | Actual formation evidence |\n| Which contract controls | Answered | C008 | All versions and supersession evidence |\n| Scope decisionmaker | Answered | C009 | Clause and actual claims |\n| Delegation standard | Answered | C009–C015 | Exact delegation text and assent |\n| Broad “all disputes” clause | Answered as insufficient alone | C010 | Other delegation language could alter result |\n| AAA incorporation | Partial | C011–C013 | Expressness, total incorporation, sophistication, actual version |\n| Specific delegation challenge | Answered | C014 | Actual challenged language |\n| Whole-contract challenge | Answered structurally | C014, C042 | Valid gateway agreement first required |\n| Separability | Answered | C014–C016 | Actual formation and clause challenge |\n| Procedural arbitrability | Answered | C017 | Actual notice/deadline term |\n| Litigation-conduct waiver gateway | Answered | C018 | Complete docket and governing Act |\n| Nonsignatory enforcement | Answered in framework | C021–C022 | Doctrine-specific facts |\n| Montana compel application | Answered | C023–C026 | Proper motion, evidence, and service |\n| Montana court with authority | Answered as District Court route | C023 | Limited-court coordination unresolved |\n| Justice/City case crossover | Unresolved | C023–C026 | Controlling coordination or stay authority |\n| Initial application service | Answered | C024 | Actual service or agreement |\n| Montana statutory stay | Answered | C025 | Formal application and severability |\n| Private arbitration demand as stay | Rejected | C026 | Court application/order required |\n| Answer deadline | Partial | C027–C029 | Procedural vehicle and court order |\n| Arbitration affirmative defense | Answered | C027 | Actual pleading and amendment |\n| Federal compel petition | Answered | C030 | Independent jurisdiction and service |\n| Federal stay | Answered | C031–C032 | Applicant default and actual request |\n| State appeal route | Answered | C033 | Actual order and appellate procedure |\n| Federal appeal route | Answered | C033–C034 | Nonfrivolous appeal and order category |\n| State automatic appellate stay | Not established | C035 | Montana appellate rule/order research in actual case |\n| Wet signature requirement | No universal requirement | C036–C037 | Actual formation method |\n| Separate initial/explanation | No universal requirement | C036–C037 | Totality facts remain relevant |\n| Conflicting contract language | Answered as possible formation defect | C038 | Complete documents |\n| One-sided carveouts | Answered as degree/context test | C039–C041 | Actual judicial remedies retained |\n| Unconscionability | Answered in framework | C036–C041 | Adhesion and oppression facts |\n| Illegal fees and arbitration | Answered as gateway distinction | C042–C043 | Specific versus whole-contract challenge |\n| Licensing defect and arbitration | Partial | C042–C043 | Statutory text and clause-specific effect |\n| CROA arbitrability | Answered | C044 | Actual CROA coverage and formation |\n| CROA substantive remedy waiver | Unresolved/partial | C045 | Actual clause and statutory remedy |\n| Part 20 jury-waiver restriction | Answered textually | C046 | FAA preemption and severability |\n| Part 20 antiwaiver | Answered textually | C046 | Actual remedy waiver and forum clause |\n| Class-action waiver | Partial | C047–C048 | Actual clause and statutory claim |\n| Class arbitration | Answered as requiring consent | C047 | Actual class-arbitration wording |\n| FAA litigation waiver | Answered | C049 | Complete litigation conduct |\n| MUAA litigation waiver | Answered under current majority | C050–C053 | *Morgan* future treatment remains open |\n| Presuit negotiation | Answered as not automatic waiver | C052 | Actual conduct |\n| Answer/counterclaim/jury demand | Partial | C053 | Whole course of conduct and governing law |\n| Nonpayment | Answered in framework | C054–C056 | Fee schedule, invoices, notices, termination |\n| Administrator refusal | Answered under AAA rules | C054–C056 | Actual administrator and order |\n| Neutral disclosure | Answered | C057 | Actual neutral and statutory exception |\n| Right to counsel | Answered | C057 | Does not establish fee shifting or appointed counsel |\n| Hearing notice | Answered | C058 | Contract may vary |\n| Fee allocation | Partial | C059 | Actual agreement, administrator, award |\n| Numeric arbitrator fees | Excluded/not calculated | — | Current actual fee schedule and case inputs |\n| AAA current rules | Answered as May 1, 2025 version | S008 | Contract may select another version |\n| AAA Registry | Answered as administrative only | C060 | Actual business/clause not searched |\n| JAMS or other administrator | Not read | — | Exact contract must identify administrator |\n| Montana dedicated forms | No dedicated form identified | C061 | Local court or private practice materials may exist |\n| Award confirmation/vacatur | Excluded | — | Later registry component |\n| Award judgment/enforcement | Excluded | — | Later judgment component |\n| Full appeal | Excluded except gateway routes | C033–C035 | Complete appellate rules later |\n| Full limitations/tolling | Excluded | — | PASS-11 remains unreviewed |\n| Evidence/standing | Excluded except arbitration gateway | C019–C022 | PASS-15 remains unreviewed |\n| Venue/service/default | Excluded except compel procedure | C023–C030 | PASS-13 remains unreviewed |\n| Secured, medical, tax, support, government, local, tribal, country | Excluded | — | Separate focused passes |\n| Actual provider or account compliance | Unresolved | C062 | Private documents and account facts required |\n| Comprehensive post-2025 Montana amendment audit | Partial | All Montana claims | Full session/special-session and paid citator work not performed |\n\n# XVI. Researcher self-check\n\n## Freshly read on October 26, 2026\n\n- Current published Montana Uniform Arbitration Act provisions concerning:Validity and exceptions.Compel and stay applications.Neutral disclosures.Arbitrator appointment.Hearing notice and participation.Counsel.Fees and expenses.Court application procedure.District Court jurisdiction.Venue.Appeals.\n- Current Montana contract-formation and consent statutes.\n- Current Montana pleading, answer, affirmative-defense, and ordinary motion rules needed for the arbitration gateway.\n- Current Montana Part 20 dispute-resolution, jury-waiver, and antiwaiver clauses, only for the precise arbitration crossover.\n- Current federal FAA §§1–4, 6, and 16.\n- Current AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, effective May 1, 2025.\n- Complete or materially complete opinions identified in the source register, including the official 2026 *Bluebird* PDF.\n- Current Montana Judicial Branch forms and motion landing pages.\n\n## Dated reuse\n\n- *Ossello* pagination and bounded holdings were reused from reviewed PASS-14:¶20 printed p.9/PDF index 8.¶27 p.12/index 11.¶31 p.14/index 13.¶¶40–41 p.20/index 19.¶¶42–43 p.21/index 20.\n- No underlying debt-relief statutory violation or provider-merits conclusion from that case was imported.\n\n## Decision-status safeguards\n\n- *Monarch*’s prejudice analysis was separated between the majority and the Chief Justice’s dissent.\n- *Big Sky*’s dissent was not described as the holding.\n- *Bluebird* 2024 was treated as a gateway-only decision.\n- *Bluebird* 2026 was treated as a document-specific mutual-assent decision involving a business loan.\n- *Brown* and *Sink* were identified as employment cases under other states’ contract settings, not controlling Montana consumer-debt cases.\n- AAA administrative determinations were not described as court rulings.\n- The current AAA rules were not assumed to govern an unidentified contract.\n- No proposed, stayed, or vacated Montana arbitration amendment was treated as operative.\n\n## Bounded negative searches and unresolved issues\n\nNo current controlling public authority located in this focused pass conclusively resolves:\n\n- FAA preemption of Montana’s $5,000 MUAA consumer-contract exclusion.\n- FAA preemption of MCA §27-5-323’s Montana-location requirement.\n- The exact coordination between a Justice/City/Municipal Court collection action and a District Court MUAA application.\n- FAA preemption of Montana Part 20’s DMP jury-waiver prohibition.\n- A universal Montana rule for assignment of arbitration rights in consumer receivables sales.\n- Whether every express incorporation of AAA Consumer Rules clearly delegates arbitrability for an unsophisticated Montana consumer.\n- Whether *Morgan* will ultimately remove prejudice from Montana’s MUAA waiver test.\n- A universal result from one missed arbitration fee.\n- A dedicated current Montana court-approved motion-to-compel-arbitration form.\n- The precise effect of a private administrator’s refusal to administer under every contract.\n- A comprehensive current JAMS or other administrator rule set absent an actual contract.\n- Any actual consumer-debt agreement, assignment, fee schedule, opt-out, administrator notice, arbitration demand, or court docket.\n\nThose bounded results are not proof that no unpublished order, local rule, later opinion, contract term, or special-sector authority exists.\n\n## Not read or resolved\n\n- Any actual:Credit agreement.Cardmember agreement.DMP or settlement contract.Electronic assent record.Arbitration opt-out.Amendment.Rule-incorporation notice.Bill of sale.Account schedule.Servicing agreement.Trust agreement.Administrator invoice.Hardship request.Suspension or termination notice.Court motion, answer, order, appeal, or docket.\n- Complete award-confirmation, vacatur, modification, appellate, judgment, or enforcement law.\n- Full class-action, representative-action, statutory-remedy, FAA-conflict, or conflicts-of-law dossier.\n- Full post-2025 Montana legislative or special-session audit.\n- A paid national or Montana citator.\n- Saved PASS-07 through PASS-11, PASS-13, or PASS-15 as accepted legal premises.\n\nExact individual source-fetch timestamps were not exposed and are not invented. No arbitration demand, motion, stay request, filing, provider search, administrator search for a named business, contact, records request, purchase, account change, private-data access, browser control, other-chat access, local write, litigation approval, arbitration approval, contract approval, independent review, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication-readiness determination occurred.\n\n**REPORT PARTIAL — the focused Montana ordinary consumer-debt arbitration, delegation, judicial-gateway, nonsignatory, waiver, stay, and nonpayment component is completed to the stated statutory, contractual, procedural, source, and currentness limits.**\n\nEND S_MT PASS-16.\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Transaction or agreement","Prima facie regime","Important exception or conflict","Operational conclusion"],"index":0,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Transaction or agreement","Prima facie regime","Important exception or conflict","Operational conclusion"],["Consumer credit-card or installment agreement involving interstate commerce","FAA §2, with state contract law governing formation and general defenses","FAA preempts arbitration-specific state obstacles","Do not apply Montana’s MUAA exclusions without analyzing FAA coverage and preemption"],["Purely intrastate consumer contract over $5,000 with written arbitration clause","MUAA potentially applies","FAA may still apply if commerce is affected despite local appearance","Commerce facts remain necessary"],["Individual contract to acquire property, services, money, or credit with total consideration ≤ $5,000","MUAA §27-5-114(2)(b) excludes the predispute clause from subsection (2)","FAA may displace the state exclusion if the contract involves commerce","No automatic validity or invalidity"],["Postdispute written submission of an existing controversy","MUAA §27-5-114(1)","Ordinary contract defenses remain","The $5,000 predispute exception is textually in subsection (2), not subsection (1)"],["Transportation-worker employment agreement","FAA Chapter 1 may be excluded under §1","State arbitration law may still apply","Not an ordinary consumer-debt rule"],["Debt-relief or credit-repair agreement using interstate channels","FAA often potentially implicated; CROA claim can be arbitrable","Formation, actual CROA coverage, delegation, and substantive-remedy waiver remain separate","CompuCredit does not validate the underlying contract or fees"],["Montana Part 20 DMP","State agreement and antiwaiver provisions apply","Potential FAA preemption where commerce is involved","Jury-waiver/arbitration result held"],["Agreement selecting another state’s law","Contract-choice and FAA issues must be resolved first","Choice clause may not govern formation, arbitrability, or Montana public-policy issue automatically","Actual clause and scope required"],["Insurance agreement","MUAA §27-5-114(2)(c) exception","Insurance-specific federal/state law and McCarran-Ferguson questions excluded","Not generalized to consumer debt"],["Personal-injury claim","MUAA §27-5-114(2)(a) exception","FAA preemption/application may be disputed; Peeler did not decide the late-raised issue","Not an ordinary contract-debt classification"]]},{"headers":["Actor","Required showing","What does not suffice by itself","Decisionmaker if contested"],"index":1,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Actor","Required showing","What does not suffice by itself","Decisionmaker if contested"],["Original creditor","Formation, assent, scope, no superseding agreement, right not transferred away","Creditor identity or account statement alone","Court unless validly delegated"],["Absolute assignee or debt buyer","Valid underlying clause; assignment of claim and related enforcement right; account-level linkage; scope","Generic bill of sale, portfolio affidavit, or debt-buyer label","Court on contract/assignment gateway; arbitrator on delegated matters after gateway"],["Multiple-step assignee","Legally sufficient path through each challenged transfer or another valid route to enforcement","Final owner’s internal ledger alone","Court initially"],["Servicer for owner","Agency or representative authority plus contract route allowing invocation","Servicing or payment-processing role alone","Court on agency and binding status"],["Servicer asserting own right","Assignment, assumption, third-party-beneficiary status, agency doctrine, or another recognized basis","Possession of account data","Court"],["Affiliate","Actual agency, alter ego, third-party-beneficiary, assumption, incorporation, or equitable-estoppel facts","Common ownership or shared brand alone","Court"],["Trustee","Valid trust, appointment, asset inclusion, and authority to enforce","“Trust” in company name","Court"],["Collection law firm","Client’s enforceable right plus authority, or its own recognized nonsignatory doctrine","Attorney engagement alone","Court"],["Debt-relief provider","Actual executed consumer agreement and covered claim","Registration, application, or fee receipt","Court unless valid delegation"],["Consumer","Contractual right to demand arbitration and compliance with initiation terms","Informal complaint alone","Court or administrator depending dispute"],["Nonsignatory consumer or guarantor","Actual assumption, agency, estoppel, third-party-beneficiary, incorporation, or other doctrine","Relationship to signatory alone","Court"],["Administrator","Private administrative authority under incorporated rules","Its administrative acceptance is not a judicial enforceability ruling","Court retains gateway unless delegated"]]},{"headers":["Issue","Presumptive decisionmaker","Required evidence or challenge","Principal authority"],"index":2,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Issue","Presumptive decisionmaker","Required evidence or challenge","Principal authority"],["Was any arbitration agreement formed?","Court","Contract, assent, signatures or electronic attribution, consideration","MCA §27-5-115; Peeler; Bluebird"],["Which of two agreements controls?","Court","Contract sequence, merger, supersession, forum clauses","Coinbase v. Suski"],["Is the moving party entitled to invoke it?","Court","Assignment, agency, beneficiary, estoppel, assumption","Arthur Andersen; Peeler"],["Does the clause cover the claim?","Court absent valid delegation","Clause text and pleaded claim","Bluebird; Peeler"],["Was arbitrability clearly delegated?","Court","Delegation text and incorporation evidence","Bluebird; Ossello"],["Is the delegation clause itself unconscionable, fraudulent, or unformed?","Court when specifically challenged","Challenge directed to delegation provision","Rent-A-Center"],["Is the contract as a whole illegal or fraudulent?","Arbitrator after valid arbitration/delegation gateway","Whole-contract rather than clause-specific challenge","Peeler; separability doctrine"],["Is contractual arbitration notice timely?","Ordinarily arbitrator","Contractual demand, notice, laches, timeliness","Peeler"],["Has litigation conduct waived arbitration?","Court","Pleadings, discovery, delay, inconsistent acts","Peeler; Monarch; Morgan"],["Did a party default by refusing to pay or participate?","Court may decide effect on compel/stay; administrator/arbitrator administers rule consequences","Fee allocation, invoices, notices, administrator orders","FAA §3; AAA R-56; Brown; Sink"],["Are merits weak or bad faith?","Arbitrator","Merits record","MCA §27-5-115(5) bars denial on that ground"],["Which AAA rule version applies administratively?","AAA initially, arbitrator finally under current R-1/R-8","Actual incorporated clause and filing date","AAA Consumer Rules"],["Does that AAA rule determine judicial delegation?","Court","Clear incorporation and assent under governing contract law","Bluebird"]]},{"headers":["Step","Montana requirement","Qualification"],"index":3,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Step","Montana requirement","Qualification"],["Application","Made by motion","MCA §27-5-321"],["Initial notice","Served like a summons unless parties agreed otherwise","Not merely ordinary Rule 5 mail or email"],["Court","District Court","MUAA text assigns the compel/stay decision to District Court"],["Pending action","Application made in the pending court only if it has §115 jurisdiction","Justice/City coordination unresolved"],["Existence denied","Court summarily determines the dispute","Evidence or testimony may be required"],["Agreement found","Court orders arbitration","Merit weakness is not a refusal ground"],["No agreement found","Application denied; threatened arbitration may be stayed","Bona fide dispute tried summarily"],["Litigation issue arbitrable","Action or severable issue must be stayed upon formal order/application","Private demand is not the statutory application"],["Arbitrator appointment failure","District Court appoints","Contractual method followed first"],["Initial application venue","Contractual Montana hearing county, actual hearing county, adverse party residence/business, or any county if none","Montana-resident venue clause has state-location restriction"],["Appeal","Denial to compel or grant of stay of arbitration appealable","No express interlocutory appeal from grant to compel"]]},{"headers":["Order or event","Montana MUAA","Federal FAA"],"index":4,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Order or event","Montana MUAA","Federal FAA"],["Denial of compel motion","Immediately appealable under §27-5-324(1)(a)","Immediately appealable under §16(a)(1)(B)"],["Refusal to stay litigation","Not separately enumerated in §27-5-324 as such","Immediately appealable under §16(a)(1)(A)"],["Grant of stay of arbitration","Immediately appealable under Montana §324(1)(b)","Injunction against FAA arbitration may be appealable under §16(a)(2)"],["Grant of compel motion","No express Montana interlocutory appeal listed","Generally no immediate appeal under §16(b)(2)"],["Grant of litigation stay","No express MUAA interlocutory appeal listed","Generally no immediate appeal under §16(b)(1)"],["Final arbitration-related decision","Judgment/order rules apply","Appealable under §16(a)(3)"],["Appeal from federal denial of arbitration","State automatic-stay rule not established","Nonfrivolous appeal automatically stays District Court merits proceedings under Bielski"],["Appeal from Montana denial","Automatic stay not established in reviewed authority","Montana appellate/stay rules require separate analysis"]]},{"headers":["Topic","Montana rule","Limit"],"index":5,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Topic","Montana rule","Limit"],["Arbitrator selection","Contract method followed; District Court appoints if method absent, fails, or vacancy unfilled","Neutral must comply with conflict-disclosure law"],["Neutral disclosure","Potential conflicts and specified prior relationships/proceedings disclosed in writing within 10 days","Collective bargaining, SEC-approved arbitrations, and Montana Bar voluntary fee arbitration excluded"],["Hearing notice","Personally or by certified mail at least five days before hearing unless agreement provides otherwise","Appearance waives notice"],["Participation","Parties may be heard, present material evidence, and cross-examine appearing witnesses","Properly notified nonappearance does not prevent decision"],["Counsel","Party has right to attorney; pre-proceeding waiver ineffective","Does not guarantee appointed or free counsel"],["Fees/expenses","Unless agreement provides otherwise, arbitrator and proceeding expenses, excluding counsel fees, are paid as award provides","No numeric amount in statute"],["Appointment failure","District Court appoints one or more arbitrators","Contractual method receives priority"]]},{"headers":["Issue","Court or arbitrator","Moving party’s initial burden","Potential order","Remaining gap"],"index":6,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Issue","Court or arbitrator","Moving party’s initial burden","Potential order","Remaining gap"],["Agreement formation","Court","Produce evidence of mutual assent and written clause","Compel, deny, or conduct summary trial","Actual contract and assent"],["Which contract controls","Court","Establish sequence, merger, supersession, and relevant forum terms","Apply controlling contract","All versions and amendments"],["Assignee right","Court","Prove transfer and account linkage","Permit or deny invocation","Purchase agreement and schedule"],["Nonsignatory right","Court","Prove recognized state-law doctrine","Compel or deny","Agency, beneficiary, estoppel facts"],["Claim scope","Court absent delegation","Clause and complaint","Compel covered claims; retain others","Actual claims and clause"],["Delegation formation","Court","Clear and unmistakable delegation plus assent","Send arbitrability to arbitrator","Delegation language/version"],["Specific delegation defense","Court","Evidence directed to delegation provision","Enforce or refuse delegation","Actual challenge"],["Whole-contract illegality","Arbitrator after valid gateway","Valid arbitration/delegation agreement","Merits determination in arbitration","Contract and statutory theory"],["Contract arbitration-demand timing","Arbitrator ordinarily","Actual demand, notice, contract deadlines","Procedural ruling","Notice and rule version"],["Litigation-conduct waiver","Court","Federal or Montana waiver elements","Deny compel or enforce right","Governing act and complete docket"],["Nonpayment default","Administrator/arbitrator initially; court may decide compel/stay consequence","Payment duty, demand, nonpayment, termination","Suspend, terminate, court fallback","Fee records and orders"],["Formal Montana compel application","District Court","§27-5-114 agreement and refusal","Compel and stay","Proper service and evidence"],["Montana stay of threatened arbitration","District Court","No arbitration agreement","Stay arbitration or order it to proceed","Formation facts"],["Federal compel petition","U.S. District Court with independent jurisdiction","FAA agreement, refusal, jurisdiction","Compel; summary trial if needed","Federal jurisdiction"],["Federal stay","U.S. District Court","Arbitrable issue and applicant not in default","Mandatory stay on request","Default/nonpayment"],["State appeal","Montana Supreme Court under §324 categories","Appealable order and proper appellate procedure","Affirm, reverse, remand","Full appellate record"],["Federal denial appeal","Federal court of appeals","§16(a) order","Automatic District Court stay if appeal nonfrivolous","Frivolity and appellate posture"]]},{"headers":["Resource","Full literal URL","Version or status","Purpose","Limitation"],"index":7,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Resource","Full literal URL","Version or status","Purpose","Limitation"],["Montana Civil Forms","https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms","Current public landing page checked October 26, 2026","Generic complaint, answer, motion, affidavit, response, reply, proposed order","No dedicated arbitration form identified; generic form does not prove entitlement"],["Montana Motions page","https://courts.mt.gov/forms/motions","Current public page","District motion and response packets","Motion packet does not determine statutory service, stay, burden, or evidence"],["Montana Uniform Arbitration Act","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/parts_index.html","MCA 2025 Internet compilation","State arbitration statutes","Printed code controls if inconsistency; no complete 2026 special-session audit"],["AAA Consumer Rules","https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","Amended and effective May 1, 2025","Consumer arbitration administration","Governs only if validly applicable; fee schedule external"],["AAA Consumer Rules and Fees page","https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","Current public page checked October 26, 2026","Current rules, fee schedule, forms","Administrator material, not judicial enforceability ruling"],["AAA Consumer Clause Registry","Identified through AAA Rule R-12 and AAA site","Current administrative route","Due-process review and public registry","Registry status is not a legal opinion"],["JAMS consumer rules","Not read","—","—","No actual agreement identified JAMS"],["Contract-specific card or lender arbitration rules","Not supplied","—","Actual governing process","Must obtain exact incorporated version before conclusion"]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint","Version/status and actual read bounds"],"index":8,"links":[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+3"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+3"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+1"},{"href":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/","text":"U.S. Code\n+3"},{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association\n+4"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"},{"href":"https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401","text":"Judicial Document Service\n+3"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html","text":"Justia Law\n+3"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html","text":"Justia Law\n+1"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf","text":"GovInfo"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf","text":"GovInfo"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf","text":"GovInfo"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf","text":"GovInfo"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf","text":"GovInfo\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"},{"href":"https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf","text":"Library of Congress Tile\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf","text":"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals\n+1"},{"href":"https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms","text":"Montana Courts\n+1"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+3"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+3"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/","text":"U.S. Code\n+3"}],[{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association\n+4"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401","text":"Judicial Document Service\n+3"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html","text":"Justia Law\n+3"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html","text":"Justia Law\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}],[],[],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf","text":"GovInfo"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf","text":"GovInfo"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf","text":"GovInfo"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf","text":"GovInfo"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf","text":"GovInfo\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"}],[{"href":"https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf","text":"Library of Congress Tile\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf","text":"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms","text":"Montana Courts\n+1"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint","Version/status and actual read bounds"],["S_MT-P16-S001","Montana Uniform Arbitration Act — validity, compel/stay, and neutral disclosure, Montana Legislature. §27-5-114: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html; §27-5-115: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0150/0270-0050-0010-0150.html; §27-5-116: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0160/0270-0050-0010-0160.html.","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML read. Complete materially relevant subsections read. No complete post-2025 special-session audit. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S002","Montana arbitration proceeding protections, Montana Legislature. §27-5-211: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html; §27-5-213: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0130/0270-0050-0020-0130.html; §27-5-214: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0140/0270-0050-0020-0140.html; §27-5-218: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0180/0270-0050-0020-0180.html.","Fresh direct official HTML read. Appointment, hearing, counsel, and fees provisions read in full. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+3"],["S_MT-P16-S003","Montana court applications, jurisdiction, venue, and appeals, Montana Legislature. §27-5-321: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html; §322: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0220/0270-0050-0030-0220.html; §323: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0230/0270-0050-0030-0230.html; §324: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0240/0270-0050-0030-0240.html.","Fresh direct official HTML read. Current published text; FAA preemption of §323’s Montana-location rule unresolved. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+3"],["S_MT-P16-S004","Montana general contract law, Montana Legislature. §28-2-102: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html; §28-2-301: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0010/0280-0020-0030-0010.html; §28-2-303: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0030/0280-0020-0030-0030.html; §28-3-102: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0030-0010-0020.html.","Fresh direct official HTML read. Essential elements, mutual consent, and default contract-law selection only; full conflicts dossier excluded. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S005","Montana pleading and motion rules, Montana Legislature. Rule 8: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html; Rule 12: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0120/0250-0200-0030-0120.html; Uniform District Court Rule 2: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0190/part_0010/section_0020/0250-0190-0010-0020.html.","Fresh direct official HTML read. Used only for affirmative-defense, answer, motion, and briefing boundaries. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S006","Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act crossover, Montana Legislature. §30-14-2010: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html; §30-14-2013: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0130/0300-0140-0200-0130.html.","Fresh direct official HTML read for dispute-resolution, jury-waiver, and antiwaiver clauses only. No whole Part 20 agreement report imported. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+1"],["S_MT-P16-S007","Federal Arbitration Act, U.S. House OLRC. §§1–4, 6, and 16: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/.","Fresh direct official HTML read. Text through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026. Chapter 4 sexual-assault/harassment provisions not developed because outside ordinary consumer-debt scope. \nU.S. Code\n+3"],["S_MT-P16-S008","AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf.","Fresh official 37-page PDF read. Amended/effective May 1, 2025. R-1 printed p.6/PDF index 5; R-7 printed p.11/index 10; R-10 printed p.12/index 11; R-12 printed p.13/index 12; R-56–57 printed pp.27–28/indices 26–27. Fee schedule external and not numerically used. \nAmerican Arbitration Association\n+4"],["S_MT-P16-S009","Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC v. World Business Lenders, LLC, 2024 MT 279, full public Montana Supreme Court opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html.","Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶10–20. Secondary host of primary judicial opinion; no paid citator. Court decided gateway only and withheld enforceability and choice-of-law merits. \nJustia Law\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S010","Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC v. World Business Lenders, LLC, 2026 MT 33, official Montana Supreme Court PDF. https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401.","Fresh complete 15-page official PDF read and relevant pages visually inspected. ¶¶13–27, printed pp.7–15/PDF indices 6–14; mutual-assent holding principally printed pp.10–15/indices 9–14. Decided February 24, 2026. \nJudicial Document Service\n+3"],["S_MT-P16-S011","Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Canada, Inc., 2018 MT 297, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html.","Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶12–23 and 44–50 for gateway, procedural arbitrability, waiver, and nonsignatory estoppel. Secondary host. \nJustia Law\n+3"],["S_MT-P16-S012","Lenz v. FSC Securities Corp., 2018 MT 67, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html.","Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶16–32 for contract formation, constitutional-waiver totality, unconscionability, and clarification that no universal explanation/initial requirement exists. \nJustia Law\n+1"],["S_MT-P16-S013","Bucy v. Edward Jones & Co., 2019 MT 173, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html.","Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶26–35 for mutuality and limited injunctive carveout. Securities/employment context. \nJustia Law\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S014","Big Sky Vacation Rentals, Inc. v. PointCentral, LLC, 2019 MT 288, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html.","Fresh full opinion read. Relied on majority ¶¶17–22; dissent not treated as holding. Business contract context. \nJustia Law\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S015","Monarch Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Petra, Inc., 2025 MT 184, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html.","Fresh full opinion read. Majority ¶¶1–14; dissent ¶¶15 onward separately identified. Majority applied three-factor waiver and declined Morgan question. \nJustia Law\n+2"],["S_MT-P16-S016","Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Ossello, 2016 MT 50. https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/2016-da-15-0301.pdf?ts=1456956123.","Dated bounded reuse from reviewed PASS-14, not a new full reread. ¶20 printed p.9/PDF index 8; ¶27 p.12/index 11; ¶31 p.14/index 13; ¶¶40–41 p.20/index 19; ¶¶42–43 p.21/index 20. Underlying statutory merits not adopted."],["S_MT-P16-S017","Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-513/pdf/USREPORTS-513-265.pdf.","Fresh official U.S. Reports PDF read. Commerce holding, syllabus printed pp.265–267/PDF indices 0–2 and opinion portions following."],["S_MT-P16-S018","Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf.","Fresh official nine-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Montana arbitration-specific notice requirement preempted; relevant printed pp.686–688/PDF indices 5–7. \nGovInfo"],["S_MT-P16-S019","AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf.","Fresh official 35-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Relevant equal-footing and class-procedure discussion printed pp.339–352/PDF indices 6–19. \nGovInfo"],["S_MT-P16-S020","Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf.","Fresh official 26-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Syllabus printed pp.63–65/PDF indices 0–2; delegation holding in opinion printed pp.68–76/indices 5–13. \nGovInfo"],["S_MT-P16-S021","Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63 (2019). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf.","Fresh official ten-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Syllabus printed pp.63–65/PDF indices 0–2; no “wholly groundless” exception. \nGovInfo"],["S_MT-P16-S022","Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf.","Fresh complete official 12-page PDF read and relevant page inspected. Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion’s which-contract gateway at slip p.6/PDF index 7 and surrounding pp.4–9. \nSupreme Court"],["S_MT-P16-S023","Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf.","Fresh official 11-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Traditional state-law nonsignatory doctrines at printed pp.630–632/PDF indices 6–8. \nGovInfo\n+1"],["S_MT-P16-S024","Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf.","Fresh complete official nine-page PDF read. Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion pp.4–8/indices 4–8. Federal prejudice requirement rejected. \nSupreme Court"],["S_MT-P16-S025","Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf.","Fresh complete official eight-page PDF read. Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion pp.2–7/indices 2–7. Requested FAA stay mandatory. \nSupreme Court"],["S_MT-P16-S026","Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf.","Fresh complete official 28-page PDF read. Relied on majority holding that a nonfrivolous §16(a) appeal stays federal district proceedings. \nSupreme Court"],["S_MT-P16-S027","CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf.","Fresh official 23-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Syllabus printed pp.95–97/PDF indices 0–2; majority holding printed pp.97–105/indices 2–10. \nLibrary of Congress Tile\n+1"],["S_MT-P16-S028","Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf.","Fresh official 49-page PDF read in relevant part and screenshots reviewed. Syllabus p.1/PDF index 0; majority class-arbitration ambiguity holding at slip p.6/PDF index 8. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_MT-P16-S029","Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc., 430 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2005). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/.","Fresh full opinion reproduction read. Employment/California case; relied on material refusal-to-arbitrate holding, not old prejudice test. \nJustia Law"],["S_MT-P16-S030","Sink v. Aden Enterprises, Inc., 352 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2003). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/.","Fresh full opinion reproduction read. Employment/Oregon context; used only for FAA “default” after nonpayment. \nJustia Law"],["S_MT-P16-S031","Mortensen v. Bresnan Communications, LLC, 722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf.","Fresh complete official 23-page PDF read. Arbitration-specific Montana rule preemption discussion at slip pp.19–21/PDF indices 18–20. Read with Montana’s later Lenz clarification. \nNinth Circuit Court of Appeals\n+1"],["S_MT-P16-S032","Montana Judicial Branch Civil Forms and Motions pages. https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms; https://courts.mt.gov/forms/motions.","Fresh official pages read. Generic motion, affidavit, proposed-order, response, and reply resources identified. No dedicated arbitration form found. Individual contract or local-court packet not reviewed. \nMontana Courts\n+1"]]},{"headers":["Claim ID","Precise claim","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence"],"index":9,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Claim ID","Precise claim","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence"],["S_MT-P16-C001","Montana generally validates written arbitration agreements subject to grounds applicable to revocation of contracts.","S001, §27-5-114(1)–(2). High."],["S_MT-P16-C002","MUAA §27-5-114(2) excludes specified predispute agreements, including individual acquisition-of-property/services/money/credit contracts with total consideration ≤ $5,000.","S001. High textual conclusion; FAA displacement unresolved."],["S_MT-P16-C003","FAA §2 applies to written arbitration agreements in contracts evidencing transactions involving commerce.","S007 §2; S017. High."],["S_MT-P16-C004","The FAA places arbitration clauses on equal footing and preempts arbitration-specific state obstacles.","S018–S019, S031. High."],["S_MT-P16-C005","FAA coverage does not arise solely from the contract’s label; actual commerce and statutory exclusions matter.","S007 §§1–2; S017. High."],["S_MT-P16-C006","Montana contract formation requires capable parties, mutual communicated consent, lawful object, and consideration.","S004. High."],["S_MT-P16-C007","A court decides whether an arbitration agreement was formed.","S001 §115; S010–S012. High."],["S_MT-P16-C008","A court decides which contract governs when competing contracts conflict over arbitrability.","S022. High."],["S_MT-P16-C009","Scope is judicial absent a valid clear-and-unmistakable delegation.","S009; S016 dated reuse. High."],["S_MT-P16-C010","Broad “any or all disputes” language alone did not delegate arbitrability in Bluebird.","S009 ¶¶13–15. High, contract-specific."],["S_MT-P16-C011","Tenuous AAA references and administration language did not clearly delegate in Bluebird/Ossello.","S009 ¶¶16–18; S016. High for those clauses."],["S_MT-P16-C012","Express incorporation of complete administrator rules remains fact-sensitive and was not categorically resolved for all consumers.","S009 ¶18; S008 R-1/R-7. High bounded conclusion."],["S_MT-P16-C013","AAA R-7 gives the arbitrator jurisdictional power only when those rules validly govern.","S008 R-7. High."],["S_MT-P16-C014","A specific challenge to a delegation provision is judicial; a whole-agreement challenge ordinarily goes to the arbitrator after valid delegation.","S020. High."],["S_MT-P16-C015","A valid delegation cannot be rejected as wholly groundless.","S021. High."],["S_MT-P16-C016","Separability does not permit an arbitrator to decide whether any agreement was formed.","S010–S012, S020, S022. High."],["S_MT-P16-C017","Contractual arbitration notice, timeliness, laches, and similar procedural conditions ordinarily go to the arbitrator.","S011 ¶¶19–20. High, absent contract-specific exception."],["S_MT-P16-C018","Litigation-conduct waiver remains a judicial gateway.","S011 ¶¶22–23; S015; S024. High."],["S_MT-P16-C019","An assignee must establish transfer of the contractual right and account linkage before invoking arbitration.","S004, S009–S011, S023. High structural conclusion; actual documents held."],["S_MT-P16-C020","A generic debt sale, servicing role, or account possession does not alone establish arbitration rights.","Same sources. High boundary."],["S_MT-P16-C021","Nonsignatories may invoke arbitration only through recognized generally applicable contract doctrines.","S011 ¶¶44–50; S023. High."],["S_MT-P16-C022","Peeler recognizes equitable estoppel for substantially interdependent misconduct intimately connected with the contract.","S011 ¶¶47–50. High, narrow and fact-specific."],["S_MT-P16-C023","A Montana compel/stay application is made to District Court, and denied existence is summarily determined.","S001 §115; S003 §321. High."],["S_MT-P16-C024","Initial notice of a Montana arbitration court application must be served like a summons unless the parties agreed otherwise.","S003 §321. High."],["S_MT-P16-C025","A formal §115 application or order requires stay of the arbitrable action or severable issue.","S001 §115(4). High textual conclusion."],["S_MT-P16-C026","A private demand letter, settlement discussion, or administrator filing is not itself the §115 court application.","S001, S003. High boundary."],["S_MT-P16-C027","Arbitration is an affirmative defense under Montana Rule 8.","S005 Rule 8(c). High."],["S_MT-P16-C028","A statutory motion to compel does not automatically alter the answer deadline unless Rule 12, another statute, or a court order does so.","S005 Rules 8, 12. High procedural boundary."],["S_MT-P16-C029","Montana’s ordinary motion briefing defaults are generally 14 days for opposition and 14 days for reply, subject to court/local order.","S005 U.D.C. Rule 2. High."],["S_MT-P16-C030","FAA §4 requires independent federal jurisdiction, five days’ notice, and a summary trial when formation/refusal is genuinely disputed.","S007 §4. High."],["S_MT-P16-C031","Federal §3 requires a stay on application when the issue is arbitrable and the applicant is not in default.","S007 §3. High."],["S_MT-P16-C032","A federal court must stay rather than dismiss when a §3 stay is requested.","S025. High."],["S_MT-P16-C033","Montana and federal arbitration appeal statutes favor immediate review of denials, not interlocutory grants to compel.","S003 §324; S007 §16. High."],["S_MT-P16-C034","A nonfrivolous federal appeal from denial of arbitration automatically stays federal District Court proceedings.","S026. High."],["S_MT-P16-C035","No equivalent automatic Montana state appellate stay was established in the reviewed authorities.","S003, bounded search. Qualified negative."],["S_MT-P16-C036","Montana does not require every arbitration clause to be separately initialed or orally explained.","S012. High."],["S_MT-P16-C037","Arbitration-specific notice/form rules are preempted under FAA equal-footing principles.","S018–S019; S031. High."],["S_MT-P16-C038","Conflicting arbitration and judicial-resolution provisions can prevent mutual assent.","S010 ¶¶17–27. High, document-specific."],["S_MT-P16-C039","One-sided litigation carveouts are not categorically invalid; extent and function matter.","S013–S014 and S016. High."],["S_MT-P16-C040","Extreme retention of the drafter’s principal judicial remedy while forcing the consumer to arbitrate can be unconscionable or lack mutuality.","S016 dated reuse. High for Ossello facts."],["S_MT-P16-C041","Limited status-preserving injunction and indemnity carveouts were upheld in Bucy and Big Sky.","S013–S014. High for those business contracts."],["S_MT-P16-C042","Whole-contract illegality does not automatically invalidate the arbitration provision judicially.","S011, S020. High."],["S_MT-P16-C043","Formation, assignment, supersession, and specific clause or delegation illegality remain judicial.","S009–S012, S020, S022. High."],["S_MT-P16-C044","CROA claims are arbitrable absent a contrary congressional command.","S027. High."],["S_MT-P16-C045","Arbitrability of a statutory claim does not necessarily permit waiver of its substantive remedies.","S027. High boundary; clause-specific."],["S_MT-P16-C046","Montana Part 20 prohibits a DMP jury waiver and waiver of Part 20 rights, but its precise interaction with the FAA is unresolved.","S006; S018–S019. High text, unresolved preemption."],["S_MT-P16-C047","Class arbitration requires actual contractual consent and cannot rest merely on ambiguity.","S028. High."],["S_MT-P16-C048","FAA preemption can bar state doctrines that condition arbitration on availability of class procedures.","S019. High."],["S_MT-P16-C049","Federal arbitration waiver does not require prejudice after Morgan.","S024. High."],["S_MT-P16-C050","Monarch’s Montana majority applied knowledge, inconsistent conduct, and prejudice and declined to decide Morgan’s MUAA effect.","S015 ¶¶8–14. High."],["S_MT-P16-C051","Monarch’s no-prejudice discussion was in dissent, not the majority holding.","S015 ¶¶15 onward. High provenance distinction."],["S_MT-P16-C052","Presuit negotiations and first-appearance invocation did not establish waiver in Peeler.","S011. High."],["S_MT-P16-C053","Seeking default relief, answering, counterclaiming, demanding a jury, and delaying supported waiver in Monarch on the whole record.","S015. High, fact-specific."],["S_MT-P16-C054","Current AAA rules permit payment advancement, participation limits, suspension, termination, and future nonadministration after nonpayment.","S008 R-56. High."],["S_MT-P16-C055","AAA current rules do not permit preventing a nonpayer from defending a claim or entering a default award merely as a sanction.","S008 R-56–57. High."],["S_MT-P16-C056","Refusal or default in a properly initiated arbitration can defeat a later compel request, depending on contract and governing law.","S029–S030. Moderate-high comparative authority; not Montana consumer-debt holding."],["S_MT-P16-C057","Montana neutral arbitrators have statutory disclosure obligations and parties have a nonwaivable preproceeding right to counsel.","S001 §116; S002 §§211, 214. High."],["S_MT-P16-C058","Montana arbitration hearing notice is generally personal or certified-mail notice at least five days before hearing, unless agreement provides otherwise.","S002 §213. High."],["S_MT-P16-C059","Montana statutory arbitration fees and expenses are paid as the award provides unless the agreement provides otherwise; counsel fees are excluded from that clause.","S002 §218. High."],["S_MT-P16-C060","AAA clause review or Registry status is administrative, not a legal enforceability opinion.","S008 R-12. High."],["S_MT-P16-C061","No dedicated current Montana court-approved motion-to-compel-arbitration form was identified.","S032. Bounded search result only."],["S_MT-P16-C062","No actual contract, rule version, assignment, administrator record, fee allocation, or litigation docket was established here.","All sources. High provenance limit."]]},{"headers":["Assigned issue","Status","Claim IDs","Exact missing evidence or next action"],"index":10,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Assigned issue","Status","Claim IDs","Exact missing evidence or next action"],["FAA transaction-in-commerce scope","Answered in legal framework","C003–C005","Actual parties, channels, performance, funding, servicing, and communications"],["FAA §1 exclusion","Answered as bounded exception","C005","Actual employment/transportation-worker status"],["MUAA written agreement validity","Answered","C001","Actual agreement and defenses"],["MUAA $5,000 consumer exception","Answered textually","C002","FAA coverage/preemption and total-consideration facts"],["Existing-controversy agreement","Answered textually","C001–C002","Actual postdispute agreement"],["State/federal preemption","Answered structurally","C003–C005, C037","Clause- and rule-specific application"],["Montana choice of law","Partial","S004","Actual clause, scope, formation, performance, and public policy"],["Original creditor bound","Answered in framework","C006–C007","Operative agreement and account"],["Assignee/debt buyer bound","Partial","C019–C020","Transfer language, schedule, account linkage"],["Servicer/agent","Partial","C020–C022","Agency and enforcement authority"],["Trustee/beneficiary","Partial","C021–C022","Trust/beneficiary documents"],["Affiliate","Partial","C021–C022","Agency, estoppel, alter ego, or beneficiary facts"],["Consumer assent","Answered in doctrine","C006–C007, C036–C038","Signature/click/use/delivery evidence"],["Electronic assent","Partial","C006–C007","Electronic transaction and attribution record"],["Rules incorporated by reference","Partial","C011–C013","Exact clause, rule set, availability, version"],["Formation decisionmaker","Answered","C007–C008","Actual formation evidence"],["Which contract controls","Answered","C008","All versions and supersession evidence"],["Scope decisionmaker","Answered","C009","Clause and actual claims"],["Delegation standard","Answered","C009–C015","Exact delegation text and assent"],["Broad “all disputes” clause","Answered as insufficient alone","C010","Other delegation language could alter result"],["AAA incorporation","Partial","C011–C013","Expressness, total incorporation, sophistication, actual version"],["Specific delegation challenge","Answered","C014","Actual challenged language"],["Whole-contract challenge","Answered structurally","C014, C042","Valid gateway agreement first required"],["Separability","Answered","C014–C016","Actual formation and clause challenge"],["Procedural arbitrability","Answered","C017","Actual notice/deadline term"],["Litigation-conduct waiver gateway","Answered","C018","Complete docket and governing Act"],["Nonsignatory enforcement","Answered in framework","C021–C022","Doctrine-specific facts"],["Montana compel application","Answered","C023–C026","Proper motion, evidence, and service"],["Montana court with authority","Answered as District Court route","C023","Limited-court coordination unresolved"],["Justice/City case crossover","Unresolved","C023–C026","Controlling coordination or stay authority"],["Initial application service","Answered","C024","Actual service or agreement"],["Montana statutory stay","Answered","C025","Formal application and severability"],["Private arbitration demand as stay","Rejected","C026","Court application/order required"],["Answer deadline","Partial","C027–C029","Procedural vehicle and court order"],["Arbitration affirmative defense","Answered","C027","Actual pleading and amendment"],["Federal compel petition","Answered","C030","Independent jurisdiction and service"],["Federal stay","Answered","C031–C032","Applicant default and actual request"],["State appeal route","Answered","C033","Actual order and appellate procedure"],["Federal appeal route","Answered","C033–C034","Nonfrivolous appeal and order category"],["State automatic appellate stay","Not established","C035","Montana appellate rule/order research in actual case"],["Wet signature requirement","No universal requirement","C036–C037","Actual formation method"],["Separate initial/explanation","No universal requirement","C036–C037","Totality facts remain relevant"],["Conflicting contract language","Answered as possible formation defect","C038","Complete documents"],["One-sided carveouts","Answered as degree/context test","C039–C041","Actual judicial remedies retained"],["Unconscionability","Answered in framework","C036–C041","Adhesion and oppression facts"],["Illegal fees and arbitration","Answered as gateway distinction","C042–C043","Specific versus whole-contract challenge"],["Licensing defect and arbitration","Partial","C042–C043","Statutory text and clause-specific effect"],["CROA arbitrability","Answered","C044","Actual CROA coverage and formation"],["CROA substantive remedy waiver","Unresolved/partial","C045","Actual clause and statutory remedy"],["Part 20 jury-waiver restriction","Answered textually","C046","FAA preemption and severability"],["Part 20 antiwaiver","Answered textually","C046","Actual remedy waiver and forum clause"],["Class-action waiver","Partial","C047–C048","Actual clause and statutory claim"],["Class arbitration","Answered as requiring consent","C047","Actual class-arbitration wording"],["FAA litigation waiver","Answered","C049","Complete litigation conduct"],["MUAA litigation waiver","Answered under current majority","C050–C053","Morgan future treatment remains open"],["Presuit negotiation","Answered as not automatic waiver","C052","Actual conduct"],["Answer/counterclaim/jury demand","Partial","C053","Whole course of conduct and governing law"],["Nonpayment","Answered in framework","C054–C056","Fee schedule, invoices, notices, termination"],["Administrator refusal","Answered under AAA rules","C054–C056","Actual administrator and order"],["Neutral disclosure","Answered","C057","Actual neutral and statutory exception"],["Right to counsel","Answered","C057","Does not establish fee shifting or appointed counsel"],["Hearing notice","Answered","C058","Contract may vary"],["Fee allocation","Partial","C059","Actual agreement, administrator, award"],["Numeric arbitrator fees","Excluded/not calculated","—","Current actual fee schedule and case inputs"],["AAA current rules","Answered as May 1, 2025 version","S008","Contract may select another version"],["AAA Registry","Answered as administrative only","C060","Actual business/clause not searched"],["JAMS or other administrator","Not read","—","Exact contract must identify administrator"],["Montana dedicated forms","No dedicated form identified","C061","Local court or private practice materials may exist"],["Award confirmation/vacatur","Excluded","—","Later registry component"],["Award judgment/enforcement","Excluded","—","Later judgment component"],["Full appeal","Excluded except gateway routes","C033–C035","Complete appellate rules later"],["Full limitations/tolling","Excluded","—","PASS-11 remains unreviewed"],["Evidence/standing","Excluded except arbitration gateway","C019–C022","PASS-15 remains unreviewed"],["Venue/service/default","Excluded except compel procedure","C023–C030","PASS-13 remains unreviewed"],["Secured, medical, tax, support, government, local, tribal, country","Excluded","—","Separate focused passes"],["Actual provider or account compliance","Unresolved","C062","Private documents and account facts required"],["Comprehensive post-2025 Montana amendment audit","Partial","All Montana claims","Full session/special-session and paid citator work not performed"]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C001","Precise claim":"Montana generally validates written arbitration agreements subject to grounds applicable to revocation of contracts.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001, §27-5-114(1)–(2). High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C002","Precise claim":"MUAA §27-5-114(2) excludes specified predispute agreements, including individual acquisition-of-property/services/money/credit contracts with total consideration ≤ $5,000.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001. High textual conclusion; FAA displacement unresolved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"requires_bounded_correction_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q003"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C003","Precise claim":"FAA §2 applies to written arbitration agreements in contracts evidencing transactions involving commerce.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S007 §2; S017. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C004","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C004","Precise claim":"The FAA places arbitration clauses on equal footing and preempts arbitration-specific state obstacles.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S018–S019, S031. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C005","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C005","Precise claim":"FAA coverage does not arise solely from the contract’s label; actual commerce and statutory exclusions matter.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S007 §§1–2; S017. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"FAA_exclusion_text_checked_commerce_case_application_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C006","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C006","Precise claim":"Montana contract formation requires capable parties, mutual communicated consent, lawful object, and consideration.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S004. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C007","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C007","Precise claim":"A court decides whether an arbitration agreement was formed.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001 §115; S010–S012. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C008","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C008","Precise claim":"A court decides which contract governs when competing contracts conflict over arbitrability.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S022. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C009","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C009","Precise claim":"Scope is judicial absent a valid clear-and-unmistakable delegation.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S009; S016 dated reuse. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C010","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C010","Precise claim":"Broad “any or all disputes” language alone did not delegate arbitrability in Bluebird.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S009 ¶¶13–15. High, contract-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C011","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C011","Precise claim":"Tenuous AAA references and administration language did not clearly delegate in Bluebird/Ossello.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S009 ¶¶16–18; S016. High for those clauses."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C012","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C012","Precise claim":"Express incorporation of complete administrator rules remains fact-sensitive and was not categorically resolved for all consumers.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S009 ¶18; S008 R-1/R-7. High bounded conclusion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C013","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C013","Precise claim":"AAA R-7 gives the arbitrator jurisdictional power only when those rules validly govern.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S008 R-7. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C014","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C014","Precise claim":"A specific challenge to a delegation provision is judicial; a whole-agreement challenge ordinarily goes to the arbitrator after valid delegation.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S020. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C015","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C015","Precise claim":"A valid delegation cannot be rejected as wholly groundless.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S021. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C016","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C016","Precise claim":"Separability does not permit an arbitrator to decide whether any agreement was formed.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S010–S012, S020, S022. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C017","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C017","Precise claim":"Contractual arbitration notice, timeliness, laches, and similar procedural conditions ordinarily go to the arbitrator.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S011 ¶¶19–20. High, absent contract-specific exception."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C018","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C018","Precise claim":"Litigation-conduct waiver remains a judicial gateway.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S011 ¶¶22–23; S015; S024. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C019","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C019","Precise claim":"An assignee must establish transfer of the contractual right and account linkage before invoking arbitration.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S004, S009–S011, S023. High structural conclusion; actual documents held."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C020","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C020","Precise claim":"A generic debt sale, servicing role, or account possession does not alone establish arbitration rights.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"Same sources. High boundary."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C021","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C021","Precise claim":"Nonsignatories may invoke arbitration only through recognized generally applicable contract doctrines.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S011 ¶¶44–50; S023. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C022","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C022","Precise claim":"Peeler recognizes equitable estoppel for substantially interdependent misconduct intimately connected with the contract.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S011 ¶¶47–50. High, narrow and fact-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C023","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C023","Precise claim":"A Montana compel/stay application is made to District Court, and denied existence is summarily determined.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001 §115; S003 §321. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C024","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C024","Precise claim":"Initial notice of a Montana arbitration court application must be served like a summons unless the parties agreed otherwise.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S003 §321. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C025","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C025","Precise claim":"A formal §115 application or order requires stay of the arbitrable action or severable issue.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001 §115(4). High textual conclusion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C026","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C026","Precise claim":"A private demand letter, settlement discussion, or administrator filing is not itself the §115 court application.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001, S003. High boundary."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C027","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C027","Precise claim":"Arbitration is an affirmative defense under Montana Rule 8.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S005 Rule 8(c). High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C028","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C028","Precise claim":"A statutory motion to compel does not automatically alter the answer deadline unless Rule 12, another statute, or a court order does so.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S005 Rules 8, 12. High procedural boundary."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C029","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C029","Precise claim":"Montana’s ordinary motion briefing defaults are generally 14 days for opposition and 14 days for reply, subject to court/local order.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S005 U.D.C. Rule 2. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C030","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C030","Precise claim":"FAA §4 requires independent federal jurisdiction, five days’ notice, and a summary trial when formation/refusal is genuinely disputed.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S007 §4. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C031","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C031","Precise claim":"Federal §3 requires a stay on application when the issue is arbitrable and the applicant is not in default.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S007 §3. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C032","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C032","Precise claim":"A federal court must stay rather than dismiss when a §3 stay is requested.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S025. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C033","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C033","Precise claim":"Montana and federal arbitration appeal statutes favor immediate review of denials, not interlocutory grants to compel.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S003 §324; S007 §16. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C034","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C034","Precise claim":"A nonfrivolous federal appeal from denial of arbitration automatically stays federal District Court proceedings.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S026. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C035","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C035","Precise claim":"No equivalent automatic Montana state appellate stay was established in the reviewed authorities.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S003, bounded search. Qualified negative."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C036","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C036","Precise claim":"Montana does not require every arbitration clause to be separately initialed or orally explained.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S012. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C037","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C037","Precise claim":"Arbitration-specific notice/form rules are preempted under FAA equal-footing principles.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S018–S019; S031. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C038","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C038","Precise claim":"Conflicting arbitration and judicial-resolution provisions can prevent mutual assent.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S010 ¶¶17–27. High, document-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C039","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C039","Precise claim":"One-sided litigation carveouts are not categorically invalid; extent and function matter.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S013–S014 and S016. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C040","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C040","Precise claim":"Extreme retention of the drafter’s principal judicial remedy while forcing the consumer to arbitrate can be unconscionable or lack mutuality.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S016 dated reuse. High for Ossello facts."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C041","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C041","Precise claim":"Limited status-preserving injunction and indemnity carveouts were upheld in Bucy and Big Sky.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S013–S014. High for those business contracts."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C042","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C042","Precise claim":"Whole-contract illegality does not automatically invalidate the arbitration provision judicially.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S011, S020. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C043","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C043","Precise claim":"Formation, assignment, supersession, and specific clause or delegation illegality remain judicial.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S009–S012, S020, S022. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"requires_bounded_correction_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C044","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C044","Precise claim":"CROA claims are arbitrable absent a contrary congressional command.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S027. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C045","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C045","Precise claim":"Arbitrability of a statutory claim does not necessarily permit waiver of its substantive remedies.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S027. High boundary; clause-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C046","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C046","Precise claim":"Montana Part 20 prohibits a DMP jury waiver and waiver of Part 20 rights, but its precise interaction with the FAA is unresolved.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S006; S018–S019. High text, unresolved preemption."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C047","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C047","Precise claim":"Class arbitration requires actual contractual consent and cannot rest merely on ambiguity.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S028. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C048","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C048","Precise claim":"FAA preemption can bar state doctrines that condition arbitration on availability of class procedures.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S019. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C049","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C049","Precise claim":"Federal arbitration waiver does not require prejudice after Morgan.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S024. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C050","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C050","Precise claim":"Monarch’s Montana majority applied knowledge, inconsistent conduct, and prejudice and declined to decide Morgan’s MUAA effect.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S015 ¶¶8–14. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C051","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C051","Precise claim":"Monarch’s no-prejudice discussion was in dissent, not the majority holding.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S015 ¶¶15 onward. High provenance distinction."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C052","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C052","Precise claim":"Presuit negotiations and first-appearance invocation did not establish waiver in Peeler.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S011. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C053","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C053","Precise claim":"Seeking default relief, answering, counterclaiming, demanding a jury, and delaying supported waiver in Monarch on the whole record.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S015. High, fact-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C054","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C054","Precise claim":"Current AAA rules permit payment advancement, participation limits, suspension, termination, and future nonadministration after nonpayment.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S008 R-56. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C055","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C055","Precise claim":"AAA current rules do not permit preventing a nonpayer from defending a claim or entering a default award merely as a sanction.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S008 R-56–57. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C056","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C056","Precise claim":"Refusal or default in a properly initiated arbitration can defeat a later compel request, depending on contract and governing law.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S029–S030. Moderate-high comparative authority; not Montana consumer-debt holding."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_or_application_dependency_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C057","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C057","Precise claim":"Montana neutral arbitrators have statutory disclosure obligations and parties have a nonwaivable preproceeding right to counsel.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S001 §116; S002 §§211, 214. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C058","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C058","Precise claim":"Montana arbitration hearing notice is generally personal or certified-mail notice at least five days before hearing, unless agreement provides otherwise.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S002 §213. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C059","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C059","Precise claim":"Montana statutory arbitration fees and expenses are paid as the award provides unless the agreement provides otherwise; counsel fees are excluded from that clause.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S002 §218. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C060","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C060","Precise claim":"AAA clause review or Registry status is administrative, not a legal enforceability opinion.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S008 R-12. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_statutory_or_administrator_text_checked_with_limits_not_whole_claim_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C061","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C061","Precise claim":"No dedicated current Montana court-approved motion-to-compel-arbitration form was identified.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"S032. Bounded search result only."},"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_original_search_result_only_no_absence_inference","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P16-C062","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_MT-P16-C062","Precise claim":"No actual contract, rule version, assignment, administrator record, fee allocation, or litigation docket was established here.","Source, predicates, consequence, and confidence":"All sources. High provenance limit."},"coordinator_verification_status":"scope_boundary_observed_no_actual_private_facts","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"all_underlying_primary_support_accepted":false}}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S001","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0150/0270-0050-0010-0150.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0160/0270-0050-0010-0160.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S001","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana Uniform Arbitration Act — validity, compel/stay, and neutral disclosure, Montana Legislature. §27-5-114: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/MCA/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html; §27-5-115: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0150/0270-0050-0010-0150.html; §27-5-116: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0160/0270-0050-0010-0160.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML read. Complete materially relevant subsections read. No complete post-2025 special-session audit. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh complete114/115/116 bodies/history/disclaimers parsed. Q003 exclusion qualification required.","limits":"No FAA-preemption resolution, actual membership, court application or disqualification date.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S002","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0130/0270-0050-0020-0130.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0140/0270-0050-0020-0140.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0180/0270-0050-0020-0180.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S002","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana arbitration proceeding protections, Montana Legislature. §27-5-211: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0050-0020-0110.html; §27-5-213: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0130/0270-0050-0020-0130.html; §27-5-214: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0140/0270-0050-0020-0140.html; §27-5-218: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0020/section_0180/0270-0050-0020-0180.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official HTML read. Appointment, hearing, counsel, and fees provisions read in full. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+3"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh complete211/213/214/218 operative bodies parsed. Appointment, default hearing/counsel/award expense boundaries supported textually.","limits":"Agreement/notice/appearance/conflict and statutory exceptions remain conditional; no fee amount or counsel-fee entitlement.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S003","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0220/0270-0050-0030-0220.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0230/0270-0050-0030-0230.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0240/0270-0050-0030-0240.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S003","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana court applications, jurisdiction, venue, and appeals, Montana Legislature. §27-5-321: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0210/0270-0050-0030-0210.html; §322: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0220/0270-0050-0030-0220.html; §323: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0230/0270-0050-0030-0230.html; §324: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0030/section_0240/0270-0050-0030-0240.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official HTML read. Current published text; FAA preemption of §323’s Montana-location rule unresolved. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+3"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh complete321/322/323/324 operative bodies parsed. Motion/initial-service, Montana-situs jurisdiction, venue and enumerated appeal routes compared.","limits":"No actual court/order/appellate stay, limited-court coordination, full appellate procedure or specialized venue acceptance.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S004","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0010/0280-0020-0030-0010.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0030/0280-0020-0030-0030.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0030-0010-0020.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S004","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana general contract law, Montana Legislature. §28-2-102: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0020-0010-0020.html; §28-2-301: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0010/0280-0020-0030-0010.html; §28-2-303: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0030/0280-0020-0030-0030.html; §28-3-102: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0030-0010-0020.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official HTML read. Essential elements, mutual consent, and default contract-law selection only; full conflicts dossier excluded. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh complete28-2-102/301/303 and28-3-102 bodies parsed. Formation elements and place-of-performance/formation interpretation text compared.","limits":"No actual assent, lawful object, consideration, controlling choice-of-law/public policy, electronic record or supersession determination.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S005","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0120/0250-0200-0030-0120.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0190/part_0010/section_0020/0250-0190-0010-0020.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S005","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana pleading and motion rules, Montana Legislature. Rule 8: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0080/0250-0200-0030-0080.html; Rule 12: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0200/part_0030/section_0120/0250-0200-0030-0120.html; Uniform District Court Rule 2: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0190/part_0010/section_0020/0250-0190-0010-0020.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official HTML read. Used only for affirmative-defense, answer, motion, and briefing boundaries. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh complete Rule8/UDCRule2 parsed; explicit dated MT13 Rule12 body reread from two complete original packets.","limits":"Arbitration and award is the Rule8 listed wording; statutory motion not automatically a Rule12 motion. Special56 rule, court orders, computation/service/local rules and current amendment chain held; no actual answer date.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S006","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0130/0300-0140-0200-0130.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S006","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act crossover, Montana Legislature. §30-14-2010: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html; §30-14-2013: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0130/0300-0140-0200-0130.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official HTML read for dispute-resolution, jury-waiver, and antiwaiver clauses only. No whole Part 20 agreement report imported. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Explicit dated MT4 section2010 and MT5 section2013 complete saved operative bodies reread. Jury waiver and Part20 antiwaiver text compared.","limits":"Actual Part20 coverage, remedies/severability and FAA preemption unresolved. Prior fee/funds/current ARM/application holds not reopened.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S007","urls":["https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S007","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Federal Arbitration Act, U.S. House OLRC. §§1–4, 6, and 16: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh direct official HTML read. Text through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026. Chapter 4 sexual-assault/harassment provisions not developed because outside ordinary consumer-debt scope. \nU.S. Code\n+3"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh complete selected FAA1/2/3/4/6/16 operative sections, displayed through PL119-124 October15,2026, parsed.","limits":"Independent federal jurisdiction, territorial hearing, service/trial/jury/admiralty exceptions, not-in-default predicates remain conditional; no independent current case-law verification.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S008","urls":["https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S008","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official 37-page PDF read. Amended/effective May 1, 2025. R-1 printed p.6/PDF index 5; R-7 printed p.11/index 10; R-10 printed p.12/index 11; R-12 printed p.13/index 12; R-56–57 printed pp.27–28/indices 26–27. Fee schedule external and not numerically used. \nAmerican Arbitration Association\n+4"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Fresh selected AAA R1/R2/R5/R7/R10/R12/R56/R57 complete parsed bodies and fee/rules landing read. Q002 missing administrative branch; Q004 locator/atomic traceability.","limits":"Not full37-page/pixels/protocol/numeric fee schedule or actual adopted rules/business entry. No judicial gateway/legal enforceability conclusion from administrator wording.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S009","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S009","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC v. World Business Lenders, LLC, 2024 MT 279, full public Montana Supreme Court opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0636.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶10–20. Secondary host of primary judicial opinion; no paid citator. Court decided gateway only and withheld enforceability and choice-of-law merits. \nJustia Law\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S010","urls":["https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S010","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC v. World Business Lenders, LLC, 2026 MT 33, official Montana Supreme Court PDF. https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=557401.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh complete 15-page official PDF read and relevant pages visually inspected. ¶¶13–27, printed pp.7–15/PDF indices 6–14; mutual-assent holding principally printed pp.10–15/indices 9–14. Decided February 24, 2026. \nJudicial Document Service\n+3"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S011","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S011","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Canada, Inc., 2018 MT 297, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-18-0086.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶12–23 and 44–50 for gateway, procedural arbitrability, waiver, and nonsignatory estoppel. Secondary host. \nJustia Law\n+3"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S012","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S012","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Lenz v. FSC Securities Corp., 2018 MT 67, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2018/da-17-0124.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶16–32 for contract formation, constitutional-waiver totality, unconscionability, and clarification that no universal explanation/initial requirement exists. \nJustia Law\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S013","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S013","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Bucy v. Edward Jones & Co., 2019 MT 173, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0493.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion read. Relied on ¶¶26–35 for mutuality and limited injunctive carveout. Securities/employment context. \nJustia Law\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S014","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S014","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Big Sky Vacation Rentals, Inc. v. PointCentral, LLC, 2019 MT 288, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2019/da-18-0614.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion read. Relied on majority ¶¶17–22; dissent not treated as holding. Business contract context. \nJustia Law\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S015","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S015","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Monarch Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Petra, Inc., 2025 MT 184, full public opinion reproduction. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2025/da-24-0760.html.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion read. Majority ¶¶1–14; dissent ¶¶15 onward separately identified. Majority applied three-factor waiver and declined Morgan question. \nJustia Law\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S016","urls":["https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/2016-da-15-0301.pdf?ts=1456956123"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S016","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Ossello, 2016 MT 50. https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/2016-da-15-0301.pdf?ts=1456956123.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Dated bounded reuse from reviewed PASS-14, not a new full reread. ¶20 printed p.9/PDF index 8; ¶27 p.12/index 11; ¶31 p.14/index 13; ¶¶40–41 p.20/index 19; ¶¶42–43 p.21/index 20. Underlying statutory merits not adopted."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S017","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-513/pdf/USREPORTS-513-265.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S017","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-513/pdf/USREPORTS-513-265.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official U.S. Reports PDF read. Commerce holding, syllabus printed pp.265–267/PDF indices 0–2 and opinion portions following."},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S018","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S018","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-681.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official nine-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Montana arbitration-specific notice requirement preempted; relevant printed pp.686–688/PDF indices 5–7. \nGovInfo"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S019","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S019","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official 35-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Relevant equal-footing and class-procedure discussion printed pp.339–352/PDF indices 6–19. \nGovInfo"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S020","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S020","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official 26-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Syllabus printed pp.63–65/PDF indices 0–2; delegation holding in opinion printed pp.68–76/indices 5–13. \nGovInfo"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S021","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S021","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63 (2019). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-586/pdf/USREPORTS-586-63.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official ten-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Syllabus printed pp.63–65/PDF indices 0–2; no “wholly groundless” exception. \nGovInfo"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S022","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S022","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh complete official 12-page PDF read and relevant page inspected. Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion’s which-contract gateway at slip p.6/PDF index 7 and surrounding pp.4–9. \nSupreme Court"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S023","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S023","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official 11-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Traditional state-law nonsignatory doctrines at printed pp.630–632/PDF indices 6–8. \nGovInfo\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S024","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S024","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh complete official nine-page PDF read. Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion pp.4–8/indices 4–8. Federal prejudice requirement rejected. \nSupreme Court"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S025","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S025","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh complete official eight-page PDF read. Syllabus pp.1–2/PDF indices 0–1; opinion pp.2–7/indices 2–7. Requested FAA stay mandatory. \nSupreme Court"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S026","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S026","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh complete official 28-page PDF read. Relied on majority holding that a nonfrivolous §16(a) appeal stays federal district proceedings. \nSupreme Court"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S027","urls":["https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S027","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep565/usrep565095/usrep565095.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official 23-page U.S. Reports PDF read. Syllabus printed pp.95–97/PDF indices 0–2; majority holding printed pp.97–105/indices 2–10. \nLibrary of Congress Tile\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S028","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S028","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official 49-page PDF read in relevant part and screenshots reviewed. Syllabus p.1/PDF index 0; majority class-arbitration ambiguity holding at slip p.6/PDF index 8. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S029","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S029","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc., 430 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2005). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1004/505376/.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion reproduction read. Employment/California case; relied on material refusal-to-arbitrate holding, not old prejudice test. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S030","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S030","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Sink v. Aden Enterprises, Inc., 352 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2003). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1197/478592/.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh full opinion reproduction read. Employment/Oregon context; used only for FAA “default” after nonpayment. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S031","urls":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S031","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Mortensen v. Bresnan Communications, LLC, 722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/15/11-35823.pdf.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh complete official 23-page PDF read. Arbitration-specific Montana rule preemption discussion at slip pp.19–21/PDF indices 18–20. Read with Montana’s later Lenz clarification. \nNinth Circuit Court of Appeals\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_judicial_authority_hold","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Original judicial source usage and supplied-context bounds read; no judicial body reopened in this coordinator review.","limits":"Original secondary/official/PDF/reuse and temporal classifications preserved; holding/posture/subsequent-treatment/application not newly verified.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_MT-P16-S032","urls":["https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms","https://courts.mt.gov/forms/motions"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P16-S032","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana Judicial Branch Civil Forms and Motions pages. https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms; https://courts.mt.gov/forms/motions.","Version/status and actual read bounds":"Fresh official pages read. Generic motion, affidavit, proposed-order, response, and reply resources identified. No dedicated arbitration form found. Individual contract or local-court packet not reviewed. \nMontana Courts\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_checked_with_limits","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","result":"Explicit dated MT15 motions landing complete returned0–44 read.","limits":"Civilforms route and underlying motion downloads/local forms not reopened. No dedicated form identified is a bounded original search result, not proved absence.","original_researcher_record_unchanged":true}}],"coverage":[{"topic":"FAA transaction-in-commerce scope","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"FAA transaction-in-commerce scope","Status":"Answered in legal framework","Claim IDs":"C003–C005","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual parties, channels, performance, funding, servicing, and communications"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"FAA §1 exclusion","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"FAA §1 exclusion","Status":"Answered as bounded exception","Claim IDs":"C005","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual employment/transportation-worker status"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"MUAA written agreement validity","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"MUAA written agreement validity","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C001","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual agreement and defenses"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"MUAA $5,000 consumer exception","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"MUAA $5,000 consumer exception","Status":"Answered textually","Claim IDs":"C002","Exact missing evidence or next action":"FAA coverage/preemption and total-consideration facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q003"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Existing-controversy agreement","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Existing-controversy agreement","Status":"Answered textually","Claim IDs":"C001–C002","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual postdispute agreement"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q003"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"State/federal preemption","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"State/federal preemption","Status":"Answered structurally","Claim IDs":"C003–C005, C037","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Clause- and rule-specific application"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Montana choice of law","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Montana choice of law","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"S004","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause, scope, formation, performance, and public policy"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q004"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Original creditor bound","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Original creditor bound","Status":"Answered in framework","Claim IDs":"C006–C007","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Operative agreement and account"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Assignee/debt buyer bound","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Assignee/debt buyer bound","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C019–C020","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Transfer language, schedule, account linkage"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Servicer/agent","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Servicer/agent","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C020–C022","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Agency and enforcement authority"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Trustee/beneficiary","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Trustee/beneficiary","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C021–C022","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Trust/beneficiary documents"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Affiliate","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Affiliate","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C021–C022","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Agency, estoppel, alter ego, or beneficiary facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Consumer assent","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Consumer assent","Status":"Answered in doctrine","Claim IDs":"C006–C007, C036–C038","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Signature/click/use/delivery evidence"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Electronic assent","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Electronic assent","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C006–C007","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Electronic transaction and attribution record"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Rules incorporated by reference","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Rules incorporated by reference","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C011–C013","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Exact clause, rule set, availability, version"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Formation decisionmaker","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Formation decisionmaker","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C007–C008","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual formation evidence"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Which contract controls","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Which contract controls","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C008","Exact missing evidence or next action":"All versions and supersession evidence"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Scope decisionmaker","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Scope decisionmaker","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C009","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Clause and actual claims"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Delegation standard","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Delegation standard","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C009–C015","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Exact delegation text and assent"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Broad “all disputes” clause","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Broad “all disputes” clause","Status":"Answered as insufficient alone","Claim IDs":"C010","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Other delegation language could alter result"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"AAA incorporation","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"AAA incorporation","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C011–C013","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Expressness, total incorporation, sophistication, actual version"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Specific delegation challenge","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Specific delegation challenge","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C014","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual challenged language"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Whole-contract challenge","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Whole-contract challenge","Status":"Answered structurally","Claim IDs":"C014, C042","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Valid gateway agreement first required"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Separability","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Separability","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C014–C016","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual formation and clause challenge"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Procedural arbitrability","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Procedural arbitrability","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C017","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual notice/deadline term"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Litigation-conduct waiver gateway","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Litigation-conduct waiver gateway","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C018","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete docket and governing Act"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Nonsignatory enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Nonsignatory enforcement","Status":"Answered in framework","Claim IDs":"C021–C022","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Doctrine-specific facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Montana compel application","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Montana compel application","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C023–C026","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Proper motion, evidence, and service"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Montana court with authority","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Montana court with authority","Status":"Answered as District Court route","Claim IDs":"C023","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Limited-court coordination unresolved"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Justice/City case crossover","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Justice/City case crossover","Status":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C023–C026","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Controlling coordination or stay authority"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Initial application service","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Initial application service","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C024","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual service or agreement"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Montana statutory stay","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Montana statutory stay","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C025","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Formal application and severability"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q002"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Private arbitration demand as stay","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Private arbitration demand as stay","Status":"Rejected","Claim IDs":"C026","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Court application/order required"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q002"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Answer deadline","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Answer deadline","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C027–C029","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Procedural vehicle and court order"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q002"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Arbitration affirmative defense","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Arbitration affirmative defense","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C027","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual pleading and amendment"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Federal compel petition","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Federal compel petition","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C030","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Independent jurisdiction and service"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Federal stay","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Federal stay","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C031–C032","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Applicant default and actual request"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"State appeal route","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"State appeal route","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C033","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual order and appellate procedure"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Federal appeal route","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Federal appeal route","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C033–C034","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Nonfrivolous appeal and order category"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"State automatic appellate stay","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"State automatic appellate stay","Status":"Not established","Claim IDs":"C035","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Montana appellate rule/order research in actual case"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Wet signature requirement","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Wet signature requirement","Status":"No universal requirement","Claim IDs":"C036–C037","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual formation method"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Separate initial/explanation","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Separate initial/explanation","Status":"No universal requirement","Claim IDs":"C036–C037","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Totality facts remain relevant"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Conflicting contract language","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Conflicting contract language","Status":"Answered as possible formation defect","Claim IDs":"C038","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete documents"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"One-sided carveouts","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"One-sided carveouts","Status":"Answered as degree/context test","Claim IDs":"C039–C041","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual judicial remedies retained"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Unconscionability","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Unconscionability","Status":"Answered in framework","Claim IDs":"C036–C041","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Adhesion and oppression facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Illegal fees and arbitration","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Illegal fees and arbitration","Status":"Answered as gateway distinction","Claim IDs":"C042–C043","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Specific versus whole-contract challenge"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Licensing defect and arbitration","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Licensing defect and arbitration","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C042–C043","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Statutory text and clause-specific effect"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q001"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"CROA arbitrability","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"CROA arbitrability","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C044","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual CROA coverage and formation"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"CROA substantive remedy waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"CROA substantive remedy waiver","Status":"Unresolved/partial","Claim IDs":"C045","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause and statutory remedy"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Part 20 jury-waiver restriction","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Part 20 jury-waiver restriction","Status":"Answered textually","Claim IDs":"C046","Exact missing evidence or next action":"FAA preemption and severability"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Part 20 antiwaiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Part 20 antiwaiver","Status":"Answered textually","Claim IDs":"C046","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual remedy waiver and forum clause"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Class-action waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Class-action waiver","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C047–C048","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause and statutory claim"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Class arbitration","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Class arbitration","Status":"Answered as requiring consent","Claim IDs":"C047","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual class-arbitration wording"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"FAA litigation waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"FAA litigation waiver","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C049","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete litigation conduct"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"MUAA litigation waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"MUAA litigation waiver","Status":"Answered under current majority","Claim IDs":"C050–C053","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Morgan future treatment remains open"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Presuit negotiation","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Presuit negotiation","Status":"Answered as not automatic waiver","Claim IDs":"C052","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual conduct"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Answer/counterclaim/jury demand","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Answer/counterclaim/jury demand","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C053","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Whole course of conduct and governing law"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Nonpayment","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Nonpayment","Status":"Answered in framework","Claim IDs":"C054–C056","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Fee schedule, invoices, notices, termination"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q002"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Administrator refusal","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Administrator refusal","Status":"Answered under AAA rules","Claim IDs":"C054–C056","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual administrator and order"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q002"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Neutral disclosure","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Neutral disclosure","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C057","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual neutral and statutory exception"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Right to counsel","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Right to counsel","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C057","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Does not establish fee shifting or appointed counsel"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Hearing notice","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Hearing notice","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C058","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Contract may vary"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Fee allocation","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Fee allocation","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C059","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual agreement, administrator, award"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Numeric arbitrator fees","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Numeric arbitrator fees","Status":"Excluded/not calculated","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Current actual fee schedule and case inputs"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"AAA current rules","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"AAA current rules","Status":"Answered as May 1, 2025 version","Claim IDs":"S008","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Contract may select another version"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q002","S_MT-P16-Q004"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"AAA Registry","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"AAA Registry","Status":"Answered as administrative only","Claim IDs":"C060","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual business/clause not searched"},"coordinator_acceptance":"correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":["S_MT-P16-Q004"],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"JAMS or other administrator","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"JAMS or other administrator","Status":"Not read","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Exact contract must identify administrator"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Montana dedicated forms","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Montana dedicated forms","Status":"No dedicated form identified","Claim IDs":"C061","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Local court or private practice materials may exist"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Award confirmation/vacatur","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Award confirmation/vacatur","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Later registry component"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Award judgment/enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Award judgment/enforcement","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Later judgment component"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Full appeal","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Full appeal","Status":"Excluded except gateway routes","Claim IDs":"C033–C035","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete appellate rules later"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Full limitations/tolling","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Full limitations/tolling","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"PASS-11 remains unreviewed"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":"MT11/MT13/MT15 scoped reviews now completed with holds"}},{"topic":"Evidence/standing","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Evidence/standing","Status":"Excluded except arbitration gateway","Claim IDs":"C019–C022","Exact missing evidence or next action":"PASS-15 remains unreviewed"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":"MT11/MT13/MT15 scoped reviews now completed with holds"}},{"topic":"Venue/service/default","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Venue/service/default","Status":"Excluded except compel procedure","Claim IDs":"C023–C030","Exact missing evidence or next action":"PASS-13 remains unreviewed"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":"MT11/MT13/MT15 scoped reviews now completed with holds"}},{"topic":"Secured, medical, tax, support, government, local, tribal, country","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Secured, medical, tax, support, government, local, tribal, country","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Separate focused passes"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Actual provider or account compliance","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Actual provider or account compliance","Status":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C062","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Private documents and account facts required"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}},{"topic":"Comprehensive post-2025 Montana amendment audit","researcher_record":{"Assigned issue":"Comprehensive post-2025 Montana amendment audit","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"All Montana claims","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Full session/special-session and paid citator work not performed"},"coordinator_acceptance":"scoped_coverage_read_not_parent_acceptance","coordinator_annotation":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:34:02.543046+00:00","review_file":"[internal evidence reference]","source_checks":"[internal evidence reference]","findings":[],"original_status_preserved":true,"all_source_and_application_holds_retained":true,"dependency_history_note":null}}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[{"issue_id":"S_MT-P16-Q001","finding":"C043 and the Section VII.E list describe specific arbitration-clause illegality as necessarily judicial. Example7C already qualifies that specific defense with the valid-delegation condition. Section IV.D and C014 separately distinguish a challenge targeting delegation from whole-contract merits after a valid delegation. The Section VII.E lead-in also combines arbitration-clause and delegation attacks without preserving that distinction. This is an internal qualification defect, not a new review of the underlying judicial holdings.","affected_claim_ids":["S_MT-P16-C043"],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":[],"localization":"claim_row_matches_available_no_complete_narrative_localization","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_MT-P16-Q002","finding":"Brief item3 expressly asks what proceeds pending a gateway ruling. The current AAA process section lists R1/R5/R7/R10/R12/R56/R57 but omits R2. R2 supplies a separate, conditional suspension of AAA administration during judicial intervention. The report correctly warns that a private letter or administrator filing does not itself stay a court answer; that proposition does not answer this administrative branch.","affected_claim_ids":[],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf"],"localization":"report_level_pending_localization_required","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_MT-P16-Q003","finding":"The executive summary, governing-regime table and C002 state the subsection2 consumer exclusion without the text's express subsection3 qualification. The fresh official body makes the subsection2 exclusions subject to subsection3's written agreement between members of a trade or professional organization for controversies arising between members after the agreement. No such membership/application facts were established.","affected_claim_ids":["S_MT-P16-C002"],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0050/part_0010/section_0140/0270-0050-0010-0140.html"],"localization":"claim_row_matches_available_no_complete_narrative_localization","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_MT-P16-Q004","finding":"The resource inventory's Full literal URL cell for AAA Consumer Clause Registry contains descriptive prose rather than a URL. The positive AAA current-rules coverage row points to source S008 rather than an atomic claim, so its specific version proposition lacks a claim-register link. The partial choice-of-law row also places S004 in the Claim IDs field. The substantive source evidence is present; these are bounded locator/claim-link defects.","affected_claim_ids":[],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0280-0030-0010-0020.html"],"localization":"report_level_pending_localization_required","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."}],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[{"id":"S_MT-P16-scoped-review-20261029","status":"reviewed_four_corrections_UNSENT_source_judicial_application_holds","at":null}]}