Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Archives - The Arbitration Law Forum The Arbitration Law Forum

Archive for the ‘Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction’ Category

Hot Topics in Appellate Arbitration: Supreme Court Review, Jurisdictional Fault Lines, and a Look Ahead to 2026

appellate arbitration-law developments In late 2025, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”) presented a CPR Speaks YouTube program entitled “Hot Topics: Year-End Wrap-Up, and 2026 Look-Ahead, on Appellate Arbitration Cases.” Moderated by our friend and colleague, Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of CPR (“CPR Alternatives”), the program brought together a panel of highly experienced arbitration practitioners to discuss recent appellate arbitration developments and to assess issues likely to command attention in the current 2025 Supreme Court Term and beyond.

The panel included Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law(“UNTD”) Professor of Practice, UNTD Assistant Director of Experiential Education, and JAMS Neutral (arbitrator and mediator); Richard D. Faulkner, veteran arbitration and appellate practitioner, arbitrator, mediator, former trial judge, prosecutor, and law professor; and the author, Philip J. Loree Jr., principal of The Loree Law Firm; founder, author, and editor of the Arbitration Law Forum; and former BigLaw partner, who focuses his practice on arbitration and appellate and trial-court arbitration litigation.

You can review the video of the presentation here. This was the 17th arbitration-related, CPR-sponsored video presentation in which Mr. Loree and other members of the panel have participated. Russ is to be thanked profusely not only for hosting and moderating the program, but also posting links and citation references to blog posts, articles and cases relevant to the matters discussed.

While the discussion canvassed a wide range of cases, the panel placed particular emphasis on two matters in which the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) has granted certiorari: Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83 (U.S.) and Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, No. 24-935 (U.S.). Together, those cases underscore the Court’s renewed engagement with arbitration-related procedural and jurisdictional questions under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”).

This post summarizes the panel’s discussion of these important appellate arbitration developments, focusing primarily on Jules and Flowers and the issues they present. It then turns to other appellate decisions that have recently shaped the arbitration-law landscape.

Appellate Arbitration Developments: Supreme Court Certiorari as the Organizing Principle

A central premise of the CPR program was that Supreme Court certiorari activity is itself a critically important signal indicating the direction in which arbitration law is trending at the appellate level. . Even where arbitration doctrine appears settled, the Court’s willingness to take certain cases—and its refusal to take others—often reveals where doctrinal fault lines have emerged or are emerging.

In this respect, Jules and Flowers Foods are especially significant. Both cases present issues that go to the scope and operation of the FAA, but neither involves a frontal assault on arbitration enforceability. To be sure, their outcomes will in Flowers determine whether, under the facts, Section 1 of the FAA exempts from the FAA certain end-point workers who transport goods without crossing borders, and in Jules, whether an FAA-governed arbitration award must be confirmed in a state, rather than federal, forum. Instead, they raise jurisdictional questions that can determine whether arbitration-related disputes are heard in federal court at all (Jules) or in any court under the FAA (Flowers).

Key Appellate Arbitration-Law Development I: Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties—Continuing or Anchor Subject Matter Jurisdiction Following a Section 3 Stay and a Section 4 Motion to Compel

In Jules, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a federal court that stays an action pending arbitration under FAA § 3, and compels arbitration under Section 4, retains subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate post-arbitration applications to confirm or vacate the award under FAA §§ 9 or 10.

Although narrow in formulation, the question is complex and has sweeping practical consequences, particularly in light of the Court’s 2022 decision in Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), which sharply limited federal courts’ ability to exercise so-called “look-through” jurisdiction over post-arbitration proceedings.

As the panel emphasized, Jules sits at the intersection of two doctrinal developments in appellate arbitration law:

Mandatory stays under FAA § 3, increasingly reinforced by Supreme Court precedent, which apply only when a party requests the stay and a court finds referable to arbitration a claim that is the subject or part of a pending federal-court lawsuit on the merits; and
Following Badgerow, restricted federal jurisdiction over pre- or post-award arbitration enforcement proceedings, at least where those proceedings are standalone, independent proceedings that do not arise out of a preexisting but stayed federal-court lawsuit.

If a federal court in a lawsuit on the merits of a dispute compels arbitration, and if a party requests a stay of the federal lawsuit pending arbitration, then under Smith v. Spizzirri, 144 S. Ct. 1173 (2024), the federal court must grant the stay. But if the same court lacks jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award, the practical utility of the initially selected and stayed federal forum is substantially diminished, and serious questions arise about whether Congress intended the FAA to permit such a result.

This is especially so since finding jurisdiction based on the preexisting jurisdiction of the federal lawsuit does not implicate any concerns about “looking through” to the underlying arbitration proceeding. As long as jurisdiction is based on the jurisdiction of the Court in the underlying lawsuit, then there is no “look through”—it’s really just “look at”—if there was subject matter jurisdiction over the stayed lawsuit, then there should presumably be subject matter jurisdiction over a motion made in that stayed lawsuit for relief under the FAA relating to the subject matter of that stayed lawsuit. See Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 15 (“Jurisdiction to decide the case includes jurisdiction to decide the motion; there is no need to “look through” the motion in search of a jurisdictional basis outside the court.”) The tension associated with all of this is what Jules brings to the fore.

CPR’s discussion of the case highlights how lower courts have divided on this issue and why the Supreme Court guidance is required. (See CPR’s analysis of Jules here.)

SmartSky Networks v. DAG Wireless: Context for the Jules Question

Against that backdrop, the panel discussed SmartSky Networks LLC v. DAG Wireless Ltd., 70 F.4th 615 (4th Cir. 2023), a Fourth Circuit decision addressing whether a federal court that compelled arbitration, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration, retained jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in Jules that the district court, which had federal question jurisdiction over a lawsuit on the merits, had continuing subject matter or anchor jurisdiction over post-award enforcement proceedings because it had granted a Section 3 stay and a Section 4 motion to compel arbitration. In SmartSky, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reached the diametrically opposite conclusion in a case involving essentially the same material facts as Jules.

Importantly, as the panel made clear, SmartSky was not discussed as an end in itself. Rather, it served as a concrete illustration of the jurisdictional problem now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Jules. The resolution of Jules will most likely determine whether SmartSky is a good law, a very important question to appellate and trial-court arbitration law practitioners.

SmartSky, unlike Jules, concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over post-arbitration proceedings, notwithstanding the Section 3 stay. That approach reflects a strict reading of Badgerow and highlights the risk that federal courts may become jurisdictionally stranded after compelling arbitration. That would leave a significant amount of additional FAA litigation to the state courts, who would be expected to apply the FAA to substantive matters but be free to apply state arbitration law to procedural matters.

The panel discussed how courts have taken different approaches, creating uncertainty for practitioners and litigants alike. These divergent outcomes underscore why Supreme Court review is warranted.

As CPR’s year-end materials explain, SmartSky and Jules, taken together, demonstrate the kind of materially different approaches to the same important issue that often prompt a grant of certiorari. (See CPR’s overview here.)

Key Appellate Arbitration-Law Development II: Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock— FAA § 1 and the Scope of the Transportation Worker Exemption

The panel also discussed Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, No. 25-121 (U.S.), the other case in which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari. Flowers Foods concerns the scope of the FAA § 1 exemption for certain “transportation workers” and the criteria courts should apply in determining whether that exemption applies.

The question before the Court is: “[a]re workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce—but who do
not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders—’transportation workers’ ‘engaged in foreign or interstate commerce’ for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act’s § 1 exemption?”

Continuing Uncertainty Under FAA § 1

Although the Supreme Court has addressed FAA § 1 in recent years, the panel noted that lower courts continue to struggle with its application, particularly in cases involving workers who perform mixed or indirect transportation-related functions, or where (as here) a bona fide question arises concerning whether the workers are engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of FAA § 1.

Flowers Foods presents an opportunity for the Court to clarify how broadly—or narrowly—the exemption should be construed, with significant implications for employment arbitration and independent contractor agreements.

The panel emphasized that FAA § 1 litigation has become one of the most active areas of appellate arbitration law, making the Court’s intervention both timely and consequential.

Other Appellate Developments Discussed

With the cert-granted-recently Supreme Court cases as the anchor, the panel surveyed several additional appellate decisions that illustrate broader trends:

International arbitration and sovereign immunity, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., 145 S.Ct. 1572 (2025), addressing a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., personal jurisdiction issue arising out of an award enforcement matter.
FAA preemption of State Law, as reflected in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.5th 310 (2025) (finding no preemption of state law concerning prompt payment of arbitrator fees).
Consumer arbitration and unconscionability, including Live Nation v. Heckman, 69 F.4th 1257 (9th Cir. 2023).
Severability of illegal arbitration agreement provisions and contract enforcement, discussed through Mungo Homes LLC v. Huskins, 379 S.C. 199, 665 S.E.2d 590 (S.C. 2023). (For a discussion of Mungo Homes, see here.)
FAA §3 stays and procedural consequences, as discussed in Smith v. Spizzirri, 144 S. Ct. 1173 (2024). (For a discussion of Spizzirri, see here.)
Flores v. New York Football Giants, Inc.,104 F.4th 205 (2d Cir. 2024), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to enforce an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be arbitrated by an arbitrator who lacked independence from the parties. (For a discussion of Flores, see here.)

Practical Implications for Arbitration Practitioners

The panel’s discussion yielded several practical takeaways, including:

Arbitration law disputes increasingly turn on procedural and jurisdictional mechanics rather than on arbitration’s legitimacy as a dispute resolution mechanism.
At least until the Supreme Court decides Jules, federal subject matter jurisdiction based on an “anchor” or “continuing jurisdiction” theory cannot be assumed simply because the court has compelled arbitration and stayed litigation pending arbitration.
Strategic decisions at the motion-to-compel stage may determine whether other FAA litigation will proceed in state, rather than federal court.
Arbitration clause drafting should account for jurisdictional endgames—including vertical (state vs. federal) choice of law—not just enforceability generally.

Looking Ahead to 2026

As the panel concluded, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jules and Flowers Foods are likely to shape arbitration practice well beyond the this 2025 Term, and the Court’s 2026 Term, which starts later next year. Together, they reflect a Court that is less concerned with whether arbitration is favored, and more concerned with how arbitration fits within the text of the FAA concerning subject matter jurisdiction and exemptions to FAA applicability.

For arbitration practitioners, staying attuned to these developments is critical. Programs like CPR’s year-end “Hot Topics” discussion provide an invaluable forum for understanding not just where arbitration law has been—but where it is heading.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, or arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and trial court and appellate arbitration-related litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance- or reinsurance-related, and other, matters.

This blog features links to several arbitration-related videos and webinars in which Mr. Loree appears.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America: Fourth Circuit Says Arbitrator gets to Decide which of Two Contracts’ Conflicting Dispute Resolution Provisions Applies

January 27th, 2025 Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Delegation Provision, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Motion to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 2, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off

Introduction: Delegation Provisions and Modern Perfection

Delegation Provisions | Arbitrability Challenge Delegation provisions clearly and unmistakably assign arbitrability determinations to arbitrators, which means they provide for arbitrators to decide arbitrability-related disputes.

Coinbase v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024) set forth the allocation of power between courts and arbitrators for four “orders” of arbitrability-related disputes:

A “first order” dispute is “[a] contest over the merits of the dispute[,]” the determination of which “depends on the applicable law and relevant facts.” 602 U.S. at 148 (quotation omitted).
A “second order dispute” concerns “whether [the parties] agreed to arbitrate the merits” of the first order dispute. 602 U.S. at 148 (quotation omitted).
A “third order dispute” concerns “who should have the primary power to decide” a second order dispute.” 602 U.S. at 149.
A “fourth order” dispute is one where there are “multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability.” 602 U.S. at 149.

Coinbase held that fourth-order disputes are for the courts, which are to decide them based on “traditional contract principles.” 602 U.S. at 149.

In a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, No. 23-1965, slip op. (4^th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025), the Court was faced with what appeared to be a “fourth-order” dispute as defined by Suski. The question was who gets to decide arbitrability questions when one contract contained a broad arbitration agreement and a delegation provision and the other a clause that expressly contemplated judicial resolution of disputes.

The problem was that Suski was not decided until briefing in both the district court and the Fourth Circuit was complete, and the arbitration challengers’ argument centered on the scope of the delegation provisions, not on whether the contracts contemplating judicial resolution of disputes superseded the delegation provisions.

The Suski fourth-order dispute issue was first raised in a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter the challenger submitted once Suski was decided. Because the argument had not been raised in the parties’ appellate briefs, the Court would not hear it, and ruled that, under the terms of the delegation provisions, the arbitrator gets to decide whether the dispute was arbitrable.

Background

Over a five-year period a bank issued to each of six plaintiffs two Continue Reading »

Transfer of Venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) in an Arbitration Conducted Virtually: An Arbitration Award is Made at the Arbitral Seat, Which is Determined by the Parties’ Agreement

January 9th, 2025 1404(a) Transfer of Venue, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitral Seat, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Situs, Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Consent to Confirmation, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Section 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Venue 2 Comments »

1404(a) transfer of venue; virtual hearings Questions about venue transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) of Section 9 or 10 petitions to confirm or vacate arbitration awards may require determination of where the award was made.

Particularly in today’s world of virtual hearings, determining where an arbitration award is made can raise questions. In Citizens Bank v. Magleby, 24 Civ. 4827 (AKH), slip op. at 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2025), the Court, following existing precedent, held that an award is made at the location where the parties agree the arbitration will take place, even if the arbitration hearings are held in another place or virtually. That rule may not be perfect but it simplifies resolution of what otherwise could be a vexing question.

Background

In Citizen’s Bank, the question arose on a 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) motion to transfer a petition to confirm an arbitration award from the Southern District of New York to Las Vegas, Nevada. The Continue Reading »

Southern District of California Dismisses Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

September 25th, 2024 Amount in Controversy, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Look Through, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Vacate, Vacatur Comments Off

vacate subject-matter jurisdiction We’ve repeatedly emphasized that—particularly since Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022)—subject-matter jurisdiction issues arising out of petitions to confirm, vacate, modify, or correct arbitration awards present traps for the unwary. (See, e.g., posts here, , here , and here.) White v. U.S. Center For SafeSport, No. 22-cv-04468-JD, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024), illustrates another subject- matter jurisdiction problem that arises, especially post-Badgerow: Is the amount-in-controversy requirement met when a petitioner seeks to vacate a “take nothing” award? The Court said the answer is “no,” at least in the circumstances of the case before it.

Petition to Vacate: Background

Respondent, United States Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) has been charged by Congress with “investigat[ing] and adjudicat[ing] allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct within U.S. Olympic and Paralympic organizations. Slip op. at 1 (citing 36 U.S.C. § 220541(a)). SafeSport investigated horse training and riding instructor Charles White (“White”) for allegedly engaging, over a period of three decades, in sexual misconduct against minors and adult females who participated in equestrian sports. Concluding those allegations had merit, SafeSport banned for life White from participating in in Olympic and Paralympic activities. Slip op. at 1.

SafeSport’s rules provided White with an option to submit to arbitration the question whether the lifetime ban was warranted. White pursued that option but the arbitrator made an award upholding the ban. Slip op. at 1-2.

White petitioned the District Court for the Southern District of California to vacate the award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). He alleged diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which required him to show not only diversity of citizenship but also that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The petition sought to: (a) vacate the award, which awarded neither him nor anyone else any monetary relief, and simply upheld the lifetime ban; or (b) remand the award for reconsideration. The petition was bereft of any allegations or evidence demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Slip op. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).

The Court ordered White to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. Initially, White submitted to the Court a declaration stating “he had lost more than $75,000 in income as a hay dealer and horse stable operator ‘as a direct result’ of the arbitration decision.” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 44 ¶ 4). The Court dismissed the case because White did not amend his petition to make those allegations but granted leave for White “to ‘articulate the basis for his claim that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,’ among other possible amendments.” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 47).

White’s amended petition “include[d] the hay dealer and stable operator losses mentioned in his declaration[,]” and “contend[ed] that the losses were ‘a direct result of [the arbitrator’s] decision, which upheld the sanction of lifetime ineligibility to participate in the sport.’” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 10).

Discussion: No Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Petition to Vacate

Focusing on the allegation that the losses directly resulted from the arbitrator “upheld[ing]” the ban, the Court found White’s amended subject-matter jurisdiction allegations to be flawed. “Vacating the arbitration decision or remanding for new arbitration proceedings,” said the Court, “which is the sole relief White seeks in the amended petition, might start the arbitration process anew, but it would not overrule or otherwise reverse the ban imposed by SafeSport.” Slip op. at 2 (record citation omitted).

“The SafeSport ban[,]” explained the Court, “remains in full effect unless an arbitrator were to decide otherwise, which has not happened.” Slip op. at 2. Even if the Court vacated the award, that “would not restore to White the income he says he lost in his hay and stables businesses.” Slip op. at 2. White would not recover any of its losses because, even in the event of vacatur, the lifetime ban would remain effective. Slip op. at 3.

The Court explained that where, as here, an action seeks “nonmonetary relief, ‘the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.’” Slip op. at 3 (quoting Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., Inc., 993 F.3d 720, 723 (9^th Cir. 2021))(quotation and citation omitted).

The Court concluded that White had failed to satisfy his burden to show that the amount in controversy requirement had been met “because a remand for further arbitration proceedings would not terminate or reverse the SafeSport ban, and would not restore the lost income White alleges. . . .” Slip op. at 3 (citations omitted).

White argued that Badgerow’s requirement that “the determination of subject matter jurisdiction over petitions to vacate under the FAA looks only to ‘the face of the application itself[,]’” Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9, was inapplicable. According to White, that requirement applied only when the basis for the petition was federal question, as it was in Badgerow. Slip op. at 3. But the Court said “there is no good reason why an FAA petition based on diversity jurisdiction should be treated any differently[]” from one falling under federal question jurisdiction, and White offered none. Slip op. at 3.

But the Court did not decide whether or not White’s argument might have merit “because, as discussed, White’s petition comes up short under established principles of diversity jurisdiction.” Slip op. at 3.

The Court also pointed out that White’s reliance on Theis Research, Inc. v. Brown & Bain, 400 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2005), was misplaced. Theis was a legal malpractice case in which the arbitrator awarded no monetary relief to either side. The client plaintiff filed in federal court a notice of motion to vacate, an application to vacate and a complaint seeking more than $200 million in damages. The defendant law firm moved to confirm the award. The Court denied the motion to vacate, granted the motion to confirm and entered summary judgment for the law firm on the complaint.

The Ninth Circuit determined that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on “‘the amount at stake in the underlying litigation.’” Slip op. at 4 (quoting 400 F.3d at 662-65.) “Because[,]” said the Court, the [Theis] plaintiff ‘sought to obtain by its district court complaint substantially what it had sought to obtain in the arbitration,’ the circuit court had no trouble concluding that the prayer for more than $200 million in damages established the required amount in controversy.” Slip op. at 4 (quoting 400 F.3d at 662-65).

The Court said the circumstances here were completely different in that there were no damages claims before the arbitrator, and that, in any event, “[i]t is also not clear that Theis survives Badgerow and its rejection of the ‘look-through’ approach to subject matter jurisdiction.” Slip op. at 4 (citing Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9). We are not sure that is necessarily so because Theis involved a claim seeking more than $200 million damages, and the amount in controversy was not solely based (and did not have to be based) on the amount in controversy in the arbitration but on the $200 million-plus amount the complaint sought.

The Court found that granting further leave to amend was unwarranted and “dismissed [the case] on jurisdictional grounds without prejudice to a vacatur proceeding in state court, as circumstances might permit.” Slip op. at 4.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act or state arbitration law, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photos featured in this post were licensed from Yay Images and are subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

Charles Bennett, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. Participate in Federalist Society Webinar Discussing SCOTUS’s 2023 Term Arbitration Decisions

September 20th, 2024 and Podcasts, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Charles Bennett, CPR Video Interviews, Events, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Courts, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Loree and Faulkner Interviews, Practice and Procedure, Professor Angela Downes, Professor Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, The Federalist Society, United States Supreme Court Comments Off

Rick Faulkner, Chuck Bennett, and Phil Loree As readers may remember on May 29, 2024, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (“CPR Alternatives”), interviewed our friends and colleagues—Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney, former judge, and overall arbitration guru, Richard D. Faulkner (“Rick Faulkner”); and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr.— about the three arbitration cases the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) heard and decided this 2023 Term: (a) Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024); (b) Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024); and (c) Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). (See here and here.) That interview was one of several that we have given to CPR concerning arbitration law developments. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) All of them are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On September 10, 2024, Rick Faulkner, whom regular readers should know well by now; highly-skilled and successful trial lawyer (and former pro basketball player), Charles Bennett (“Chuck Bennett”); and the author, Philip J. Loree Jr., participated in a Federalist Society webinar entitled “Recent Supreme Court Decisions: Implications for the Business World.” (See here.) The webinar was sponsored by the Federalist Society’s Litigation Practice Group, and hosted by Caroline Bryant, Associate Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, who introduced the panel’s members and otherwise ensured that things ran smoothly. Chuck Bennett’s, Rick Faulkner’s, and my own Federalist Society bios are here, here, and here.

As the Federalist Society aptly put it, “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape arbitration law through a strict interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with each term introducing new nuances.” (See here.) The webinar was designed to “explore Supreme Court decisions from the latest term and examine recent interpretations by federal appeals courts, focusing on their impact on arbitration practice.” (See here.) It sought to “offer practical insights into the evolving landscape of arbitration law, updates for attorneys to ensure compliance with the latest legal developments, and strategies to optimize arbitration for clients currently using or considering arbitration.” (See here.)

Rick Faulkner, Chuck Bennett, and I discussed in detail the Bissonnette, Spizzirri, and Coinbase decisions, as well as “infinite arbitration clauses,” subject matter jurisdiction, and a recent highly publicized (but now voluntarily resolved) arbitration dispute concerning the Walt Disney Company. Chuck provided the unique perspective of a trial lawyer thoroughly versed in arbitration matters.

You can view the webinar here. That link also allows you to download it, or listen to it on Apple, Google, Spotify, or Amazon podcast platforms.

Chuck, Rick Faulkner, and I express our sincere gratitude to Caroline, the Federalist Society’s Litigation Group, and the Federalist Society itself, for sponsoring the program and giving us an opportunity to share with others some of our thoughts on arbitration-law matters, including the arbitration-law cases SCOTUS decided this year.

Please note that, as set forth in its website, “the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.” (See here.)

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

Another Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Mishap, this Time in the Seventh Circuit

August 22nd, 2024 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Diversity Jurisdiction, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 4, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Comments Off

subject-matter-jurisdiction The Seventh Circuit’s decision in King v. Universal Health Services of Hartgrove, Inc., No. 23-3254, slip op. (7th Cir. August 5, 2024) (nonprecedential disposition), is yet another lesson about how important it is to take great care to ensure that subject-matter and appellate jurisdiction requirements are met. King may be a “nonprecedential disposition,” but that doesn’t mean one should disregard its lessons.

Background

The story begins back in December 2018 when employee A (the “Employee”) commenced an action (“Action I”) against employer B (the “Employer”) that asserted various claims, including for employment discrimination based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Employer moved under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to compel arbitration based on an agreement Employee signed at the commencement of employment. See 9 U.S.C. § 4.

The district court in Action I granted the motion and entered judgment in May 2020. We cannot tell from the Court’s brief opinion whether anyone requested a stay pending arbitration. (See our recent post on Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).)

The arbitration proceeded and the arbitrator made an award in favor of the Employer. Employee commenced a new district court action (“Action II”) in which it sought an order vacating the award. Around the same time, the Employer made a motion in Action I to confirm the award under FAA Section 9. See 9 U.S.C. § 9.

That prompted the Court in Action II to make an order consolidating Action I with Action II. The Court designated no lead case and maintained separate dockets for each Action.

The Court in Action I made an order granting the motion to confirm. More than a month later the Court in Action II entered judgment for the employer, stating “‘[n]o further action’ was needed regarding King’s motion to vacate the award in that case.” Slip op. at 2.

The employer filed a timely notice of appeal in Action II. The notice of appeal referenced the case numbers for Actions I and II, as well as the Action I Court’s 45-day-prior decision confirming the award.

The Action II Court Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Action I was apparently commenced by the Employee based on federal question jurisdiction, as one of the claims asserted was under the Americans Continue Reading »

D.C. Circuit Says it has No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Competing Claims to Confirm or Vacate Award Made Pursuant to Collective Bargaining Agreement

August 21st, 2024 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, Labor Law, LMRA Section 301, LMRA Section 301(a), Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Comments Off

We’ve made over the last several months months a point of discussing arbitration-enforcement litigation cases addressing the subject-matter jurisdiction because—particularly in the context of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”)—it is not only complex but frequently counterintuitive. (See here, here, and here.) This case— International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Consol Energy Inc., ___ F.4d ___, No. 22-7110, slip op. (D.C. Cir. August 9, 2024)—caught our eye because the Court held that that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff on one ground and over the defendants’ counterclaim on an independent ground, Article III standing.

Background

The United Mine Workers of America (the “Union”) and coal mining companies (the “Mining Companies”), all subsidiaries of Consol Energy, Inc. (“Consol”), signed a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) but Consol did not. The CBA provided for arbitration of grievances. It also provided to Union members lifetime health care benefits. The Union claims that the Mining Companies could not reduce benefits unilaterally, even if a member no longer mined coal.

For its part Consol was the Mining Companies’ health care administrator. Prior to the CBA’s expiration date, Consol informed the Mining Companies’ mining employees that Consol would consider modifying miner benefits once the CBA expired.

That prompted a retired miner to file a grievance against Consol, an arbitration followed, and with the support of the Union, the miner obtained an award in his favor. The arbitrators determined they had jurisdiction over Consol, a nonsignatory to the CBA, which by the time the arbitration took place, had expired. They also determined that the proposed benefit modifications would violate the CBA and made an award that prohibited Consol from making them.

The Union brought against Consol and the Mining Companies an action in district court to confirm the award, invoking Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) Section 301(a)’s grant of subject-matter jurisdiction over actions “for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Consul and the Mining Companies brought a separate action to vacate the award, and the district court consolidated the two cases.

Prior to the district court reaching its decision Consol was split into two successor entities and otherwise ceased to exist. One of the two was joined but the district court dismissed it because its business did not concern coal mining. The other successor entity (the parent of the Mining Companies) was never made a party. The Mining Companies remained parties to the consolidated action.

The district court dismissed on standing grounds the Union’s confirmation action. It found the Union suffered no injury because there was no CBA violation. While Consul proposed to modify benefits it never did so. But the district court nevertheless determined on the merits that there was no basis for vacating the award, either. An appeal by both parties followed.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The D.C. Circuit’s Decision

The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that “[n]o party in this appeal has shown that federal courts have jurisdiction over its claim.” United Mine Workers, slip op. at 8. It therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Union’s claim, vacated the district court’s determination on the merits of the vacatur counterclaim, and remanded the counterclaim with instructions to dismiss it on standing grounds. Id.

The District Court had No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Confirm the Award

Seventh Circuit Blocks Mass Arbitration: Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

July 16th, 2024 American Arbitration Association, Appellate Jurisdiction, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Fees, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Arbitration Waivers, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Delegation Agreements, Equal Footing Principle, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 202, Federal Arbitration Act Section 203, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Mass Arbitration, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Arbitrability, Questions of Arbitrability, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 4, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Comments Off

Introduction: Mass Arbitration

For many years consumers, employees, and others fought hard—with varying degrees of success—to compel class arbitration, and sellers, employers, and other more economically powerful entities fought equally hard to compel separate arbitrations in multi-claimant situations. Over time, companies included in their agreements—and courts enforced—clear class-arbitration waivers.

That might have been the end of the story but for a stroke of genius on the part of certain plaintiffs’ attorneys. These clever attorneys devised what is now known as “mass arbitration.”

In mass arbitration, as in class arbitration, multiple claimants—each represented by the same lawyer or group of lawyers—assert at the same time numerous claims against a corporate defendant.

The result is that business entity defendants may be are forced to pay upfront hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in arbitration provider and arbitrator fees as a precondition to defending thousands of individual arbitration proceedings that raise one or more common issues.

Saddling the business entity defendants at the outset with those enormous arbitration fees obviously puts them in an untenable settlement position. The business entities also incur very substantial legal costs for arbitration-related litigation.

Given the vigor with which business entities have opposed class arbitration—which, despite its cumbersome nature, purports to be (but really isn’t) a workable mechanism for resolving multiple, similar, arbitral claims—one can hardly fault a judge for concluding that business entity defendants have reaped what they’ve sown. But it would be strange to think that Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) arbitration should, in multiple claimant situations, boil down to the business entity choosing one form of economic extortion (endless, inefficient, and prohibitively expensive class arbitration) over another (being forced to pay millions of dollars of arbitration fees upfront before being able to defend any of the individual arbitrations).

There have been some recent efforts on the part of arbitration providers to amend their rules to address mass arbitration in a more equitable manner. But those rules, and the ins, outs, and idiosyncrasies of mass arbitration are beyond this post’s ambit.

Our focus instead is on a very important mass-arbitration development: the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to address mass arbitration, Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-2842, slip op. (7^th Cir. July 1, 2024). The case is especially significant because it may portend the end of mass arbitration, at least in the form it typically takes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit derailed petitioners’ efforts to compel judicially the respondent to pay millions of dollars of arbitration fees demanded by mass arbitration claimants. It did so in two blows, the second more decisive than the first. Continue Reading »

International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Interviews Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the Three SCOTUS Cases Decided this Term and More

June 3rd, 2024 Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, CPR Alternatives, CPR Video Interviews, Delegation Agreements, Exemption from FAA, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 1, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 3, FAA Transportation Worker Exemption, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Courts, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Forum Selection Agreements, Loree and Faulkner Interviews, Professor Angela Downes, Questions of Arbitrability, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

CPR SCOTUS Wrap Up

As readers may know, over the last four years or so, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (“CPR Alternatives”), has hosted presentations about significant arbitration-law developments (principally in the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”)) that feature interviews of our friends and colleagues: Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney, and former judge, Richard D. Faulkner; and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) These interviews are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2024, Russ interviewed Professor Downes, Rick and me about the three arbitration cases SCOTUS heard and decided this 2023 Term: (a) Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024); (b) Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. ___ (2024); and (c) Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). We also discussed what one might expect on the arbitration front from the 2024 SCOTUS Term, Samsung’s mass arbitration case pending in the Seventh Circuit, and recent, controversial arbitration awards rendered against a major U.S. retail pharmacy company and their implications. You can view that interview here.

As always, we express our gratitude to Russ and CPR for hosting these interviews, and, along with Angela and Rick, look forward to contributing to future programs hosted by CPR.

On a related matter, CPR Alternatives recently published parts I and II of our article discussing and analyzing SmartSky Networks LLC v. DAG Wireless Ltd., ___ F.4th ___, No. 22-1253, slip op. (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024) (available at https://bit.ly/4aviBLS). That case has created a split in the circuits concerning whether a Court having the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to hear a federal question lawsuit on the merits, and thus the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to grant a Section 3 stay of litigation pending arbitration, can be deemed to have subject matter jurisdiction over a post-award application to confirm, vacate, or modify an award—or an application to appoint an arbitrator or enforce a Section 5 arbitral summons—in circumstances where, if the application were made in a standalone, independent action, the Court would not have had subject matter jurisdiction under Badgerow. Prior to Spizzirri, we wrote a number of articles concerning this sometimes-vexing issue. (See here, here, and here.)

Part I of the article is entitled Philip J. Loree Jr., The Fourth Circuit Weighs the Post-Badgerow Jurisdictional Anchor—and Finds It Won’t Set, 42 Alternatives 73 (May 2024), and was published in the May 2024 issue of Alternatives. Part II is entitled Philip J. Loree Jr., More on Independent Actions and the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Where the Law on Award Enforcement May Be Going, 42 Alternatives 95 (June 2024), which was published in the June 2024 issue of Alternatives. We recently submitted to Alternatives a short, post-script article about how the Spizzirri case, which was not decided until after the other two articles had been submitted, might bear on SmartSky. We expect that article will be published in CPR Alternatives next issue.

Although CPR Alternatives is a subscription-only publication (available to CPR Members only), Russ has said that upon email request, CPR will provide, for fair use purposes only, a copy of each of these articles. You can make your request by emailing Alternatives@cpradr.org.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

SCOTUS Decides Spizzirri, Saying that FAA Section 3 Stays of Litigation Pending Arbitration are Mandatory if Requested

May 21st, 2024 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 16, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Look Through, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Section 16, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, Stay Pending Appeal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Textualism, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off

Section 3 Stay of Litigation On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) in Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. ___, No 22-1218, slip op. (U.S. May 16, 2024), decided 9-0 that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) does not “permit[] a court to dismiss the case instead of issuing a stay when the dispute is subject to arbitration and a party requests a stay pending arbitration.” 601 U.S. at ___; slip op. at 1.

In an opinion written by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court concluded that the “text, structure, and purpose” of Section 3 and the FAA all “point to the same conclusion: When a federal court finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration, and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration , the court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration.” 601 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 3. The Court therefore held that if a lawsuit “involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a Section 3 stay, the Court must stay the litigation. 601 U.S. at ___; slip op. at 6.

The Court’s opinion resolves a long-standing and deepening split in the circuits, which the Court left open in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000), and Lamps Plus v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176, 181 n.1 (2019). That split in the circuits is discussed in note 1 of the Court’s opinion. 601 U.S. at ___ n.1, slip op. at 2-3 n.1 (citing cases).

Background

The underlying merits litigation that resulted in an order granting a motion to compel arbitration—but a dismissal despite the request for a Section 3 stay— was a state court action between current and former drivers for a delivery service and the operators of that service. Claims were made under state and federal employment laws based on alleged misclassification of the drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Claimants sought damages for sick leave and overtime wages.

Defendants removed the case to federal district court in Arizona and moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the action. Claimants conceded arbitrability but argued that the action should be stayed under Section 3.

Ninth circuit precedent granted district courts considering an application to stay litigation under Section 3 the discretion to either stay or dismiss the action. Relying on that precedent, the district court dismissed the suit, reasoning that all claims in the litigation had been ordered to arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, but two judges concurred, suggesting that this Ninth Circuit precedent was wrong and that SCOTUS should resolve the split in the circuits concerning whether a requested Section 3 stay was mandatory when claims in the litigation are subject to arbitration and a stay is requested.

SCOTUS granted certiorari, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and resolved the split. Continue Reading »

Archive for the ‘Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction’ Category

Hot Topics in Appellate Arbitration: Supreme Court Review, Jurisdictional Fault Lines, and a Look Ahead to 2026

Appellate Arbitration Developments: Supreme Court Certiorari as the Organizing Principle

Key Appellate Arbitration-Law Development I: Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties—Continuing or Anchor Subject Matter Jurisdiction Following a Section 3 Stay and a Section 4 Motion to Compel

SmartSky Networks v. DAG Wireless: Context for the Jules Question