Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶39

In Badgerow, the question was whether anything in § 9 or § 10 of the FAA affrmatively authorized an unusual approach premising jurisdiction on claims never fled before the court. Here, the question is instead whether there is anything in the FAA that precludes the normal operation of federal jurisdiction regarding live claims that are still pending before a federal court. There is not. A federal court with jurisdiction to stay claims pending arbitration under § 3 of the FAA has the same jurisdiction to resolve motions to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is affirmed.

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