Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶17

The District Court disagreed and confirmed the arbitral award. The Second Circuit affirmed. Badgerow, the Second Circuit emphasized, “involved [a freestanding] action commenced . . . for the sole purpose of vacating an arbitral award.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a (Pet. App.). That made it fundamentally “unlike the present action, which started as a federal question suit before it was stayed pending arbitration.” Ibid. In the latter situation, the Court of Appeals reasoned, “the Supreme Court has held that a `court with the power to stay the action under § 3 has the further power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award,' ” regardless of whether there is an independent jurisdictional basis for the § 9 and § 10 proceedings. Ibid. (quoting Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U. S. 193, 202 (2000); alteration omitted). Because nothing in Badgerow undermined this…

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