Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶36

In any event, even if Jules's policy concerns had some merit, there are countervailing concerns on the other side. Jules's rule would significantly diminish “the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts,” Spizzirri, 601 U. S., at 478, by forcing them to stay proceedings under § 3 for essentially no reason in most cases. It would also undermine the efficiency interests at the heart of the FAA by forcing parties who were previously in federal court (often, as here, against their wishes) to launch a fresh state-court proceeding, complete with “a new filing fee,” to secure confirmation or vacatur of an arbitral award. Ibid.; cf. Hall Street, 552 U. S., at 588 (noting that §§ 9–11 “substantiat[e] a national policy favoring arbitration” by helping to “resolv[e] disputes straightaway”).

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