Pilot to immediately present something to this court. The FAA allows for an immediate appeal from “[a]n order ... refusing to stay any action under section 3” of the FAA. § 16(a)(1)(A). Pilot requested a stay under section 3 of the FAA. See R. 84-16, PID 883. The district court refused to stay the action. See R. 95, PID 1527. Pilot appealed that decision. Ergo, Pilot is appealing an order refusing to stay an action under section 3 of the FAA. But this jurisdictional path can only take Pilot so far. This court interprets § 16 to grant us jurisdiction over immediate appeals from specific arbitration-related decisions—not over other issues that a court happens to address in the same order as those decisions. See Turi v. Main St. Adoption Servs., LLP, 633 F.3d 496, 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Pilot can appeal the denial of its stay
holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over personaljurisdiction and venue defenses addressed in a district courts order refusing to dismiss and compel arbitration holding that the fourth circuit had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a south carolina district courts order denying a motion to compel arbitration even though the district court also transferred the case to a georgia district court holding that claims were subject to arbitration and converting the motion to compel into a motion to dismiss for improper venue because the contract mandated arbitration in california holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act