to arbitrate was properly invoked, by either side, at any time, is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. Thus I would reverse on the very narrow ground that a motion to compel must be granted because the arbitration clause is valid. I would leave all other issues to the arbitrator. I As the en banc opinion in Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) has revealed, there are continued tensions in our arbitration jurisprudence which have failed to clarify this area. Very recently, the Supreme Court has renewed its commitment to support arbitration in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1402, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). But Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 395, 400, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967) (<HOLDING>), Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537
holding that a federal court must order arbitration once it is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived