In Green v. U.S. Cash Advance Illinois, LLC, — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 3880219 (7th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the FAA requires a district judge to appoint an arbitrator if when the arbitrator designated by the parties was unavailable, and the choice of arbitrator was no so important that the whole contract had to be vitiated.  The Plaintiff contended that U.S. Cash Advance, from which she borrowed money, misstated the loan’s annual percentage rate and so violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1606. The lender asked the district judge to stay the litigation and direct arbitration under ¶ 17 of the loan agreement. . . The agreement was signed on May 8, 2012. But the National Arbitration Forum had not been accepting new consumer cases for arbitration since July 2009, when it settled a suit by Minnesota’s Attorney General, who believed that the Forum was biased in merchants’ favor. The lender asked the district court to appoint a substitute arbitrator under 9 U.S.C. § 5. The judge declined, stating that the identity of the Forum as the arbitrator is “an integral part of the agreement”, that ¶ 17 is void, and that the dispute will be resolved on the merits in court. The Court of Appeals, Easterbrook, Chief Judge, reversed and remanded, holding that : (1) Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required appointment of a substitute arbitrator when arbitrator designated by parties was unavailable and (2) identity of arbitrator was not so important that whole contract had to be vitiated.  “Paragraph 17 makes one thing clear: These parties selected private dispute resolution. Courts should not use uncertainty in just how that would be accomplished to defeat the evident choice. Section 5 allows judges to supply details in order to make arbitration work. The district judge must appoint an arbitrator, who will resolve this dispute using the procedures in the National Arbitration Forum’s Code of Procedure.”