has been brought, to commence a separate original action in federal district court to seek enforcement of an arbitration agreement. As such, the Defendant’s Rule 13(a) objection to the Defendants’ petition is without merit. 4. Demand For a Jury Trial Finally, the Defendant contends that the demand for a jury trial renders an order compelling arbitration inappropriate at the present time. While the FAA does allow for parties to demand a jury trial to resolve factual issues surrounding the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect or refusal to perform the agreement, it is well settled that “[a] party to an arbitration agreement cannot obtain a jury trial merely by demanding one.” Dillard v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 961 F.2d 1148, 1154 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); 9 U.S.C. § 4 (1999). In addition, the
holding that once a mandatory choice of forum clause is deemed valid the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate exceptional facts explaining why he should be relieved from his contractual duty holding in addition that defendant must make at least some showing that under prevailing law he would be relieved of his contractual obligation to arbitrate if his factual allegations surrounding the arbitration agreement proved to be true holding that a party who has not expressly or implicitly agreed to be bound by an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate holding that motion to dismiss which conspicuously omitted any reference to an arbitration agreement was not the proper method to stay litigation and compel arbitration as it was not a motion showing an agreement to arbitrate under section 15673 recognizing the courts obligation to assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor