Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶24
It is true that, by the time the parties fled the § 9 and § 10 motions here, the arbitrator had issued an award that marked “a contractual resolution of the parties' dispute.” 596 U. S., at 9. As Jules argues, that out-of-court resolution functioned like a release, which could serve as an affrmative defense and be used to “resolve the original claim” fled in court. Reply Brief 15 (citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c)(1), which lists “arbitration and award” as an “affrmative defense”). The fact that the arbitral award may “resolve” Jules's original claims, however, only underscores why the District Court's original jurisdiction extends to the parties' § 9 and § 10 motions. Those motions required the District Court to assess whether there were grounds to vacate the award. See § 9 (requiring confirmation “unless the award is vacated . . . as prescribed in sectio[n] 10”). They were…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.