Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶30

Second, Jules disputes whether § 9 and § 10 applications should really be considered motions in a pending case. Instead, he argues, they should be treated as entirely “new federal actions” for purposes of assessing jurisdiction, even when fled in pre-existing suits, because § 9 and § 12 of the FAA require service and notice of such applications. Brief for Petitioner 22–23. This Court has explained, however, that § 3's mandatory stay is aimed precisely at “avoid[ing] [the] costs and complications” of “bring[ing] a new suit,” Spizzirri, 601 U. S., at 478, and even Jules admits that neither service of process nor a whole new proceeding is always necessary, see Reply Brief 6, n. 1. The service provisions in § 9 and § 12 (the latter of which, governing service of § 10 motions, does not even mention “jurisdiction”) do not impose the strict jurisdictional rule Jules favors.

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