of subsidiary). Courts are powerless to compel arbitration in the absence of a contract in which both parties have agreed to submit their grievances to arbitration. Acevedo v. Caribbean Transp., Inc., 673 So.2d 170, 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). It is hornbook law that to be bound one must be a party to a contract, and ensual foundation is wholly consistent with federal policy. The requirement also makes perfect sense. Subject matter jurisdiction over an action or series of claims can be conceptualized as conferring a personal right on the parties to have that action, or those claims, adjudicated in a judicial forum. See e.g. Pacemaker Diag. Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984) (<HOLDING>); accord, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530,
recognizing exceptions to the continuous ownership requirement in certain merger cases recognizing exceptions to immunity recognizing that the federal litigant has a personal right subject to exceptions in certain classes of cases to demand article iii adjudication of a civil suit holding that the requirements of article iii are consistent with the establishment by congress of nonarticle iii courts to enforce federal criminal laws in clause 17 federal enclaves recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii