3. The approach in RUAA Section 8 that limits a court ability to grant preliminary relief to any time "[b]efore an arbitrator is appointed or is authorized or able to act * * * upon motion of a party" and provides that after the appointment the arbitrator initially must decide the propriety of a provisional remedy, avoids the delay of intervening court proceedings, does not cause courts to become involved in the merits of the dispute, defers to the parties' choice of arbitration to resolve their disputes, and allows courts that may have to review an arbitrator's preliminary order the benefit of the arbitrator's judgment on that matter. See II Macneil Treatise §§ 25.1.2, 25.3, 36.1. This language incorporates the notions of the Salvano case that upheld the district court's granting of a temporary restraining order to prevent defendant from soliciting clients or disclosing client information but "only until the arbitration panel is able to address whether the TRO should remain in effect. Once assembled, an arbitration panel can enter whatever temporary injunctive relief it deems necessary to maintain the status quo." 999 F.2d at 215. The Salvano court's preliminary remedy was necessary to prevent actions that could undermine an arbitration award but was accomplished in a fashion that protected the integrity of the arbitration process. See also Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 882 F.2d 806, 814, appeal after remand, 887 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1989) (stating that court order to protect the status quo is necessary "to protect the integrity of the applicable dispute resolution process"); Hughley v. Rocky Mountain Health Maint. Org., Inc., 927 P.2d 1325 (Colo. 1996) (granting preliminary injunction to continue status quo that health maintenance organization must provide chemotherapy treatment when denial of the relief would make the arbitration process a futile endeavor); King County v. Boeing Co., 18 Wash. App. 595, 570 P.2d 712 (1977) (denying request for declaratory judgment because the issue was for determination by the arbitrators rather than the court); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:23A-6(b).

After the arbitrator is appointed and authorized and able to act, the only instance in which a party may seek relief from a court rather than the arbitrator is when the matter is an urgent one and the arbitrator could not act in a timely fashion or could not provide an effective provisional remedy. The notion of "urgency" is from the 1996 English Arbitration Act § 44(1), (3), (4), (6). These circumstances of a party seeking provisional relief from a court rather than an arbitrator after the appointment process should be limited for the policy reasons previously discussed.

4. The case law, commentators, rules of arbitration organizations, and some state statutes are very clear that