Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶26
The FAA's structure further confirms jurisdiction here. This Court recently considered “whether § 3 permits a court to dismiss [a] case instead of issuing a stay when the dispute is subject to arbitration and a party requests a stay pending arbitration.” Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U. S. 472, 474 (2024). Given that § 3 dictates that courts in this situation “ `shall . . . stay' ” proceedings, the Court easily concluded that “a stay,” not dismissal, “is required.” Id., at 476–477. This conclusion, the Court emphasized, “comport[ed] with the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts,” which includes “assist[ing] parties in arbitration by . . . appointing an arbitrator, see 9 U. S. C. § 5; enforcing subpoenas . . . , see § 7; and facilitating recovery on an arbitral award, see § 9.” Id., at 478. “Keeping [a] suit on the court's docket makes good sense in light of this potential…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.