In the last segment of this Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide, we discussed the substantive requirements for confirming a Chapter One Domestic Award. Now we turn to the procedural requirements.
What are the Procedural Requirements for Confirming a Chapter One Domestic Award?
The key procedural requirements for confirming arbitration awards are:
The party seeking confirmation may apply for it “within one year after the award is made. . .”;
Notice of application must be properly served;
Venue must be proper; and
The “court must grant” confirmation “unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected” under Section 10 or 11 of the FAA.
InLandau v. Eisenberg, ___ F.3d ___, No. 17-3963, slip op. (May 1, 2019) (per curiam), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that district courts must “look through” a Section 9 petition to confirm an arbitration award to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition. District courts must therefore ascertain whether the district court would, absent an arbitration agreement, have had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying controversy that resulted in the arbitration, and ultimately the award.
While the Second Circuit ruled in a per curiam decision, the issue it decided was of first impression. But it followed on the heels of, and heavily relied on, Doscher v. Sea Port Grp. Sec., LLC, 832 F.3d 372, 379-89 (2d Cir. 2016), which held that district courts should look through a Section 10 or 11 petition to ascertain the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Doscher instructed federal courts to focus not on whether the Section 10 and 11 FAA award review and enforcement process presented substantial federal questions, but on the same thing they would have focused on had they been asked to compel arbitration of the controversy: whether the underlying controversy, in keeping with the well-pleaded complaint rule, would have been within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction had it not been submitted to arbitration. See Doscher, 882 F.3d at 379-89.
While Eisenberg and Doscher concerned the question whether federal-question subject matter jurisdiction exists over FAA Sections 9, 10, and 11 petitions, the reasoning of those cases also applies to the question whether there is federal subject matter jurisdiction over such petitions based on the diversity jurisdiction.
The Problem Addressed by Eisenberg and Doscher
Problem | Issue
The Federal Arbitration Act is “something of an anomaly in the realm of federal legislation: It bestows no federal jurisdiction but rather requires for access to a federal forum an independent jurisdictional basis over the parties’ dispute.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009).
Section 4 of the FAA, which governs motions to compel arbitration, provides that to determine the “independent jurisdictional basis” the court must ascertain whether “save for such agreement, [the district court] would have jurisdiction. . . of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy [claimed to be arbitrable][:]”
[a] party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.
9 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court held in Vaden that “§ 4 of the FAA does not enlarge federal court jurisdiction,”
556 U.S. at 66, and district courts must “look through” the petition to the
controversy between the parties to ascertain whether the court had subject
matter jurisdiction over the controversy. 556 U.S. at 62. District courts must
therefore “assume the absence of the arbitration agreement and determine
whether it would have jurisdiction under title 28 without it.” Id. at 63.
But section 4 of the FAA expressly specifies the
circumstances under which a federal district court will have jurisdiction over
an application to compel arbitration, whereas Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the
FAA—which address applications to confirm, vacate, and modify awards—say
nothing about subject matter jurisdiction. The availability of relief under
those portions of the FAA is not conditioned on either the existence of a
lawsuit over which the Court already has subject matter jurisdiction (and which
may have been stayed pending arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA) or on a
party having previously invoked the court’s jurisdiction by filing a proceeding
to compel arbitration under Section 4.
Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the FAA do not in and of
themselves vest jurisdiction in a district court simply because they are part
of a federal statute—the FAA requires an independent basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction. But what determines subject matter jurisdiction, the
nature of the petition to confirm, vacate, or modify the award, or the nature
of the underlying dispute that ultimately resulted in the arbitration
award?
Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Please see also the information and links set forth on each footer page of the The Loree Law Firm website of which this blog is a part (http://www.loreelawfirm.com), and in the disclaimer that appears in the bottom right corner of each post page of this blog.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Loree Law Firm or any of its current or former clients.
