or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.”); Rivard Graphics Supply and Equipment, Inc. v. Hull Printing Co., Inc., 994 F.Supp. 118, 120 (Dist.Conn.1998) (stating that arbitration should be required “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.”) (internal quotes omitted); and Cybertek, Inc., v. Bentley Sys. Inc., 182 F.Supp.2d 864, 868 (D.Neb.2002) (recognizing the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration). Because the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims that are pending in the Dallas Arbitration, the outcome of those proceedings will be binding on the parties. See Val-U Construction Co. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 146 F.3d 573, 581 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); and Teamsters Local Union v. J.H. Merritt and
holding doctrine of collateral estoppel may apply to unconfirmed arbitration award holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to issues resolved by arbitration where there has been a final determination on the merits notwithstanding a lack of confirmation of the award citations omitted holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding that collateral estoppel and res judicata apply to quasijudicial agency decisions holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes