stay of court proceedings in which the issues involved are referable to arbitration under an agreement, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal, absent certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Jeske v. Brooks, 875 F.2d 71, 73 (4th Cir.1989). Here, the district court did not certify that the “order[s] involve[ ] ... controlling question^] of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section 16 of the FAA does not, however, apply to this case, because the issues involved in the court action are not referable to arbitration under any agreement. See Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatschappij, N.V. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 441 (2d Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>). The parties to Action III, Sierra and the
holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added holding that faa was inapplicable where parties involved in action are not parties to an arbitration agreement under which issues are referable to arbitration