Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶10

Second, in Badgerow v. Walters, the Court concluded that Vaden's look-through approach does not apply to freestanding motions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under § 9 or § 10. 596 U. S., at 5. The parties in Badgerow began by proceeding directly to an arbitration of federal claims without filing suit in any court and without filing any § 3 or § 4 motion. Ibid. After the arbitration resolved the federal claims at issue, one party sought confirmation of the award in federal court, while the other sought vacatur. Ibid. Like in Vaden, the FAA motions presented no (non-FAA) federal question on their face, and the parties were not diverse. 596 U. S., at 9. The Court thus considered whether Vaden's “ `look-through' approach to jurisdiction applies to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under the FAA's Sections 9 and 10.” 596 U. S., at 5.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.