came to this same straightforward conclusion in Employers Ins Co of Wausau v Century Indemnity Co, 443 F3d 573, 577 (CA 7, 2006), where the court cogently explained: We find based on Howsam that the question of whether an arbitration agreement forbids consolidated arbitration is a procedural one, which the arbitrator should resolve. It does not involve whether Wausau and Century are bound by an arbitration clause or whether the arbitration clause covers the Aqua-Chem policies. Instead, the consolidation question concerns grievance procedures—i.e., whether Century can be required to participate in one arbitration covering both the Agreements, or in an arbitration with other reinsurers. Accord Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v Sea Breeze I, LLC, 83 So 3d 395, 399 (Miss App, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v
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 holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular issue any doubt about who should decide the consolidation issue was resolved in favor of the arbitrator holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator