Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶9

In two prior cases, this Court has addressed how to assess jurisdiction over FAA motions fled as “freestanding” actions in federal court. First, in Vaden v. Discover Bank, the Court held that § 4 permits courts to assess jurisdiction by “ `looking through' ” a motion to compel arbitration to the underlying dispute. 556 U. S., at 62. There, the parties began with a contract dispute in state court, but after one side fled counterclaims, the other side fled a § 4 motion in federal court invoking the contract's arbitration agreement. Id., at 54–55. The § 4 motion itself did not present a federal question; it invoked only a contractual right to arbitrate. Id., at 63. Nor was diversity jurisdiction available. Id., at 54, n. 1. Yet this was not the end of the matter. As the Court observed, § 4's text authorizes relief if a court, “ `save for [the arbitration] agreement, would have…

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