Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶22

Here, the District Court had original jurisdiction, under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, over Jules's federal claims. It was this very jurisdiction that authorized the court to adjudicate the arbitrability of Jules's claims under the parties' contract to begin with, before staying litigation pending arbitration. Nothing in the FAA eliminated that jurisdiction while the parties arbitrated. See Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S. 576, 581 (2008) (“As for jurisdiction over controversies touching arbitration, the [FAA] does nothing”). So when the parties returned to court after arbitration with § 9 and § 10 motions, the court had the same “jurisdiction to decide the case,” and thus “jurisdiction to decide th[ose] motion[s],” that it possessed from the start. Badgerow, 596 U. S., at 15. “The court had federal question subject matter jurisdiction and . . . never lost it.” 1 I.…

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