Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶27

Under the rule the Court adopts today, this scheme continues to work well: The FAA requires a stay, rather than dismissal, so that a court that has granted a § 3 stay can superintend the arbitration to the end, including through confirmation or vacatur. On Jules's theory, however, things would fall apart. Without an independent jurisdictional basis (like complete diversity and more than $75,000 at stake) on the face of a § 5, § 7, § 9, or § 10 motion, Jules concedes that a court that grants a mandatory § 3 stay has little to do but wait until the arbitration concludes and, finally, dismiss the claims. It would be curious for § 3 to mandate keeping cases on federal dockets for essentially no reason at all in the cases where federal interests are likely at their highest: those, like this one, involving live federal questions. More plausibly, a court that grants a § 3 stay retains…

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