In Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co., Inc., No. 14-5193 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2014), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to stop arbitration. The Sixth Circuit determined that the district court’s order determining that arbitrability of the dispute was within the court’s province, which was the basis for granting plaintiff’s motion to stop the arbitration, failed to identify what the district court found to be ambiguous about the parties’ manifest intent to submit all disputes, including disputes regarding the enforceability of any provision, exclusively to arbitration. The Sixth Circuit, relying on Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson,561 U.S. 63, 67–70 (2010) and on a de novo review of the arbitration agreement, found that the parties manifestly intended to submit the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and not the court.