stay and to. compel arbitration if there is an underlying written agreement/provision to arbitrate and, if doing so, would be helpful and assist the bankruptcy court in exercising its bankruptcy jurisdiction. Compare Fed. R. BaNKR. P. 9019(c) (2016). Under the FAA, an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract, such that its validity is subject to initial court determination; but if the arbitration provision is valid, the validity of the remainder of the contract is left for the arbitrator to decide. Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 500, 503, 184 L.Ed.2d 328 (2012) (per curium) (citations omitted); see also Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 446, 126 S.Ct. 1204; Compare Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346, 349, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917 (2008) (<HOLDING>). “A motion to compel arbitration calls for a
holding that an arbitrator not a federal or state court will resolve questions concerning validity in the first instance when parties agree to arbitrate all disputes arising under their contract holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because it was necessary to interpret the contract to resolve the parties dispute recognizing exception to general rule that disputes arising under contract with valid arbitration clause are referred to arbitrator holding that agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising out of contract authorized arbitrator to decide postjudgment interest issues