resolution ‘by arbitration.’ ” Judge William W. Schwarzer, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 16:63.1 (The Rutter Group 2002) (citing Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for Trust No. 1, 218 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.2000)). Any party to an arbitration agreement covered by the FAA who is “aggrieved by the alleged ... refusal of another to arbitrate” may petition a federal district court “for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. Under the FAA, the court, not the arbitrator, must decide whether a particular dispute is arbitrable., 9 U.S.C. § 4; AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The court must determine (1) whether there
holding that all issues other than arbitrability such as fraud in the inducement are for the arbitrator to decide after a court has determined that the arbitration agreement is valid holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements holding that the arbitrator is without power to determine arbitrability absent clear  and unmistakable language in the arbitration agreement conferring such power holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator recognizing that questions of arbitrability canbe delegated to the arbitrator but concluding that the parties did not agree to submit any issues to the arbitrator because the agreement never came into existence by its terms