Restaurants, Inc, 320 F Supp 2d 656, 668 (MD Tenn, 2004), aff'd 414 F3d 583 (CA 6, 2005). But then came Stolt-Nielsen, in which a majority of justices made clear that Bazzle was only a plurality decision, and thus did not contain a holding regarding anything, let alone deciding whether classwide arbitration was a gateway issue for the court to decide. Stolt-Nielsen, 559 US at 679-680. The Court made this point again in Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter, 569 US_,_; 133 S Ct 2064, 2068 n 2; 186 L Ed 2d 113 (2013), where a majority said that “[the] Court has not yet decided whether the availability of class arbitration” is a decision relegated to the court (thus a gateway issue) or the arbitrator (and thus a procedural, or subsidiary, issue). See also Reed Elsevier, 734 F3d at 597-598 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that Stolt-Nielsen and
holding that the court has no independent authority to compel arbitration of a class claim holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide recognizing that bazzle contained no precedential rulings and holding that based on stoltnielsen class arbitration was a gateway issue for the court holding that stoltnielsen did not require it to modify its prior holding in employers ins co of wausau 443 f3d at 577 that whether to consolidate arbitration cases was not a gateway issue holding that the district court did not err by compelling individual rather than class arbitration because the relevant agreements were silent as to class arbitration