Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶33

Finally, Jules resorts to policy. Allowing courts to exercise jurisdiction in cases like this one, he worries, will encourage parties to “engage in useless federal litigation for the sole purpose of creating a jurisdictional anchor” later on, Brief for Petitioner 34, disrupting the “ `sensible . . . division of labor' ” between state and federal courts that Badgerow recognized, Brief for Petitioner 31 (quoting 596 U. S., at 18). Even without such gamesmanship, he continues, respondents' rule will make federal jurisdiction turn on the “happenstance” of whether one party to an arbitral dispute fled a federal case before proceeding to arbitration. Brief for Petitioner 14.

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