The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to reconsider an earlier order by which the Court had refused to compel arbitration of a Hurricane Ida insurance dispute. The Court had not addressed the validity of the arbitration clause in the parties’ insurance contract, but had found that the parties had failed to timely opt out of the Curt’s Hurricane Ida Case Management Order (CMO), which presumed litigants in Hurricane Ida cases to be subject to the Hurricane Ida Streamlined Settlement Program (SSP) described in the CMO. Having stressed at the outset that the purpose of the Hurricane Ida CMO and SSP was to facilitate a just and expeditious resolution of Hurricane Ida insurance cases, the Court found that compelling arbitration in this case would bring the matter to resolution justly and expeditiously, in accordance with the CMO’s objectives. It then granted the motion to compel arbitration, holding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met here: there was an arbitration agreement in writing in the insurance contract between the parties; the agreement provided for arbitration in the United States, a Convention signatory; it concerned a commercial legal relationship, the insurance policy; and at least one of the parties was not a US citizen. The Court finally noted that, while Louisiana law generally prohibits arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, the New York Convention superseded state law.