Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶29

Jules's remaining counterarguments are without merit. First, and primarily, he points to Badgerow. In his view, Badgerow makes clear that the FAA is a “reticulated” framework whose “text,” alone, governs federal jurisdiction over FAA disputes and requires an independent jurisdictional basis for all § 9 and § 10 motions. Reply Brief 1–2. As explained, however, this overreads Badgerow, which nowhere converted the “nonjurisdictional” FAA, Vaden, 556 U. S., at 59, into a “reticulated” jurisdictional scheme. The problem for the losing party in Badgerow was that, without the look- through approach authorized by § 4, there was no federal jurisdiction to be found in the case. See 596 U. S., at 9, 12. Because § 9 and § 10 did not provide a textual basis for applying the look-through approach, the Court held that it was not available. Id., at 14. Respondents here, to the contrary, are not asking…

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