Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶2
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 through' ” the fled action “to the parties' underlying substantive controversy” outside of court. Vaden, 556 U. S., at 62. Instead, the court may assess its jurisdiction by looking at the suit that is already before it. As Badgerow explained, “[j]urisdiction to decide [a] case includes jurisdiction to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.