Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

608 U. S. 200 (2026) · 5/14/26

A federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims as prescribed in §9 and §10 of the Act.

This case presents the question whether a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims, even when the motion to confirm under § 9 or the motion to vacate under § 10 does not independently present a basis for federal jurisdiction on its face. Between 2017 and 2020, petitioner Adrian Jules worked at the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles, California. When the hotel ended his employment in March 2020, Jules sued in Federal District Court in New…

Held: A federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under § 3 of the FAA has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims as prescribed in § 9 and § 10 of the FAA; nothing in the FAA precludes the normal operation of federal jurisdiction regarding live claims pending before a federal court. Pp. 209–218. (a) Unlike with the freestanding applications at issue in Vaden v. Dis cover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, and Badgerow, assessing jurisdiction over a § 9 or § 10 motion in a case originally fled in federal court does not require “ `looking…