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

Posts Tagged ‘Subject Matter Jurisdiction’

CPR’s March 27 Appellate Arbitration Video Panel: Jules, Flowers Foods, Goff, and Bruce

arbitration video CPR

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (“CPR”) presented on March 27, 2026, the latest instalment of its long-running hot-topics in arbitration video series: “Hot Topics: The Supreme Court’s March on Arbitration.” Our good friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, moderated the presentation. The panelists were our other good friends and colleagues Professor Angela Downes and Richard D. Faulkner— plus the author, Philip J. Loree Jr.

This developments in arbitration video looked backward to the March 25, 2026, Supreme Court argument in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, No. 24-935 (U.S. argued Mar. 25, 2026), forward to the March 30 argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83 (U.S. argued Mar. 30, 2026), and sideways to certain consequential circuit decisions, including USAA Savings Bank v. Goff, No. 25-1730, slip op. (7th Cir. Mar. 19, 2026), and Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP, No. 25-5210, slip op. (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026). This was the eighteenth CPR arbitration video presentation this panel (or most of it), has given during the past four or five years.

The March 27, 2026, Video

The March 27 program is best understood not as a one-off webinar, but as the newest installment in a continuing conversation about where appellate arbitration law is heading. CPR’s December 2025 year-end program had already previewed Jules and Flowers Foods, the two U.S. Supreme Court arbitration-law cases the Court has thus far accepted this 2025 Term for review.

What the March 27, 2026, Video Shows About the Current State of Arbitration Law

This latest arbitration video shows that the four featured matters are different on their facts but closely related in what they reveal about the present state of arbitration law. None is a frontal assault on arbitration. Each instead concerns a doctrinal pressure point: where post-award litigation belongs, who falls within the FAA’s Section 1 transportation-worker exemption, when courts will conclude that arbitrators exceeded the bounds of the contract by not interpreting it, and how far Congress’s Ending Forced Arbitration Act (“EFAA”) carve-out extends once sexual-harassment or sexual-assault claims are pleaded together with other claims not covered by the EFAA.

In that respect, Jules remained the centerpiece. Jules asks whether a federal court that properly exercised federal question jurisdiction over an action, and then stayed that action pending arbitration under FAA Section 3, may later adjudicate post-award FAA motions without having a new and independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. The question is narrow only on the surface. In practical terms, it concerns whether a federal court that has federal question jurisdiction over the merits dispute, and pursuant to FAA Section 3 stays the litigation pending arbitration of the merits dispute, may, at the request of one of the parties, and without having a new and independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (such as diversity), complete the job after the award returns, or whether the parties must instead start over in state court. The CPR panel’s discussion came only days before the March 30 argument, which made the presentation a timely and useful preview of one of the Court’s most important FAA jurisdiction-related cases since Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), and Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).

Readers who view the March 27, 2026 presentation and the subsequent March 30, 2026 oral argument can see that the panelists’ comments were largely or entirely on the mark. CPR Speaks followed the argument with a very thoughtful same-day report, Supreme Court Hears Case on Federal Courts’ Powers to Confirm Arbitration Awards. A decision likely will issue before the close of the October 2025 Term in late June.

Flowers Foods concerns the scope of FAA Section 1’s transportation-worker exemption. But both Jules and Flowers Foods share an important feature: both concern where the FAA stops, and both therefore affect whether arbitration disputes will be resolved in court, in arbitration, or in some jurisdictional or procedural limbo between the two. The March 27 program accordingly framed Flowers not as an isolated exemption dispute, but as part of the Court’s broader and continuing effort to define the FAA’s boundaries with greater textual precision.

The panel also highlighted two significant circuit courts of appeals decisions that underscore how much important arbitration doctrine is shaped outside the U.S. Supreme Court. In Goff, the Seventh Circuit addressed a rare circumstance in which a court vacated an award on the ground that the arbitrator had, disregarded the parties’ contract and thus did not even arguably interpret it. That issue is significant not because courts often vacate awards on that basis, but because they rarely do. Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569, 572-73 (2013), made clear how narrow the path is for setting aside an award under FAA Section 10(a)(4) when the arbitrator is at least arguably construing the agreement. A decision like Goff therefore commands attention because it tests the line between genuine contract interpretation and an arbitrator’s substitution of her own notions of “[economic] justice” or “sound policy.” See id. at 569; Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 672, 675 (2010).

Bruce, in turn, is one of the most important circuit-court decisions construing the EFAA. The Sixth Circuit adopted what is sometimes called the entire-case rule: when a case includes an EFAA-covered sexual-harassment dispute, the statute renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to the whole case, not merely as to the EFAA-covered claims. See Bruce, slip op. at 17-19. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that reading, the decision is consequential because it gives the statute a broader practical effect than a claim-by-claim approach would have done. The March 27 CPR program usefully placed Bruce in the same conversation as Jules, Flowers Foods, and Goff because all four cases illuminate a common theme: appellate courts are increasingly defining arbitration law through technical yet consequential disputes over scope, forum, remedy, and statutory carve-outs, rather than through generalized debates about whether the federal policy in favor of arbitration should in a given case drive an arbitration-friendly outcome.

The presentation also illustrated the value of continuity among panelists. Professor Downes, Rick Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, and the author bring different vantage points to the discussion: academic, arbitral, appellate- and district-court practitioner, and editorial. Because the same group has returned repeatedly over several years, the programs have developed into something more useful than mere episodic commentary.

For readers of The Arbitration Law Forum, the key takeaway is straightforward. The March 27 program is worth watching not only for its discussion of the four featured cases, but also for the broader picture it paints. The doctrinal stakes of the Supreme Court’s arbitration docket are larger than they first appear. Lower federal courts continue to generate important arbitration law at a brisk pace. And many of the most consequential disputes now concern not whether arbitration will or should be enforced in the abstract, but how courts define the boundaries of arbitral power, arbitral forum, and arbitral exception. This eighteenth CPR presentation captures, in one discussion, several of the issues likely to shape arbitration-law practice in the months and years ahead.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration law, or arbitration-related litigation, then you may contact the author at pjl1@loreelawirm.com or +1 (516) 941-6094.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of The Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and arbitration-law matters. The Loree Law Firm’s website is https://loreelawfirm.com/.

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.

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.

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

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 »

SmartSky: Fourth Circuit Says No Jurisdictional Anchor Post Badgerow

Introduction

This post discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in SmartSky Networks, LLC v. DAG Wireless, Ltd., ___ F.4^th ___, No. 22-1253, slip op. (4^th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024). SmartSky held that, under Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022), if a party makes a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify an award in an action over which the Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction, then it must nevertheless demonstrate that the Court would have had subject matter jurisdiction had the motion been brought as a standalone petition to confirm, vacate, or modify. That is so even if the Court has under Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) Section 3 stayed the action pending arbitration.

Suppose:

A and B, both New York citizens, entered a contract containing an arbitration agreement;
A and B become embroiled in a dispute that is governed by a federal statute;
A sues B in federal court, properly invoking the federal court’s federal- question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
B demands arbitration, and moves to compel arbitration under Section 4 and for a stay of litigation pending arbitration under Section 3;
A unsuccessfully opposes the motion, the Court compels arbitration and grants a Section 3 stay of litigation pending arbitration.
B ultimately obtains a $100,000 (exclusive of costs and interest) award in its favor and moves in the stayed action to confirm the award.
A opposes the motion on the ground the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award.

SmartSky would require the Court to dismiss A’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even though A made the motion in an action over which the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the Court had compelled the arbitration that resulted in the award, and the Court had stayed the action pending arbitration under Section 3. There is no federal-question jurisdiction, and because both A and B are citizens of New York, no diversity jurisdiction.

According to SmartSky, the dismissal of the motion to confirm would be required by Badgerow.

Badgerow

In Badgerow the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) held that a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction—independent from the FAA itself—must appear on the face of a standalone, petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and that independent basis cannot be established by “looking through” to the underlying arbitration proceeding that resulted in the award. See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1314, 1320.

Simply petitioning a court for relief under Sections 9, 10, 0r 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) raises no federal question and does not confer on a court federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction, as strange as that might sound to the uninitiated. In the absence of a federal question appearing on the face of the freestanding petition—such as a claim for relief falling under Chapter Two of the FAA, which implements the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), see 9 U.S.C. §§ 202, 203; 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or one falling under Chapter Three, which implements or Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Inter-American Convention”), see 9 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331—the only possible basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over such a standalone petition is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

If there is no diversity jurisdiction, and if the action does not concern an award falling under the New York or Inter-American Conventions, then the substantive provisions of Chapter One still apply but enforcement must be sought in state court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009) (“Given the substantive supremacy of the FAA, but the Act’s nonjurisdictional cast, state courts have a prominent role to play as enforcers of agreements to arbitrate”).

A “Jurisdictional Anchor” Post-Badgerow?

The author explained in a recent Arbitration Law Forum post—Philip J. Loree Jr., Weighing the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Post-Badgerow Second Circuit Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements for Applications to Confirm, Modify, or Vacate Arbitration Awards, Arbitration Law Forum (Nov. 13, 2023) (the “Jurisdictional Anchor Post”)— that Badgerow leaves unanswered an important question. It arises when—in a preexisting action over which the Court already has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction—a Court grants a motion made under Sections 4 and 3 of the FAA to compel arbitration and stay litigation, and a party subsequently moves in the same, stayed action to confirm, vacate, or modify an award resulting from the compelled arbitration. Does the Court in the stayed action have continuing subject matter jurisdiction to hear the parties’ motions to confirm or vacate the award, even though there is no independent basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction? Can the existing but stayed federal-question lawsuit provide a “jurisdictional anchor” for the motions to confirm or vacate even though the Court would not, under Badgerow, have subject matter jurisdiction over those motions if either were brought as an independent, freestanding petition to confirm or vacate an award?

SmartSky, as we’ve seen, says the answer to those questions is no: the parties moving to confirm or vacate must establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction even when the motion is brought in a pre-existing but stayed lawsuit over which the Court undisputedly had federal question jurisdiction.

SmartSky has flatly rejected the “jurisdictional anchor” theory (a/k/a “anchor jurisdiction”), under which the answer would be yes: the parties do not have to establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction because they are filing their motions in a preexisting stayed action over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

SmartSky Caused a Circuit Split Concerning the Viability of Anchor Jurisdiction

SmartSky‘s conclusion directly conflicts with the only other post-Badgerow U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to address anchor jurisdiction, Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, 66 F.4^th 1099 (7^th Cir. 2023). If we count pre-Badgerow cases, SmartSky also conflict with the pro-anchor-jurisdiction holdings of the Second, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Dodson Int’l Parts v. Williams Int’l Co., 12 F.4th 1212, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2021) (citing cases).

SmartSky’s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Arbitration proponent SmartSky has added to its legal team SCOTUS ace Daniel L. Geyser, Esq., Chair of Haynes and Boone, LLP‘s U.S. Supreme Court Practice, and, with Mr. Geyser’s assistance, prepared and submitted a very well-written and persuasive Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which among other things, pointed out the Circuit conflicts which SmartSky has created with both pre- and post-Badgerow decisions and explained why SmartSky believes the Fourth Circuit misconstrued Badgerow and failed to adhere to settled subject-matter-jurisdiction principles. SmartSky, No. 22-1253, Dk. 77.

The Petition also pointed out that, even if SmartSky correctly construed Badgerow, there is an independent basis for jurisdiction under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) because two of the parties are foreign citizens, DAG Wireless LTD (“Wireless”) and David D. Gross.

Both of these persons are, according to SmartSky, identified on the face of the petition as Israeli citizens (Wireless was identified as an Israeli company and D. Gross as an Israeli resident). Smartksy points out that the award therefore falls under the Convention and its enforcement raises a federal question. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 202, 203, & 207; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 22-1253, Dk. 77 at 13-16.

On March 13, 2024, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. 22-1253, Dk. 80. That raises the possibility that SmartSky might petition SCOTUS for certiorari, something that wouldn’t surprise the author given that Mr. Geyser has joined its team. If SmartSky petitions for certiorari, SCOTUS will presumably have to consider whether the current split in the circuits warrants certiorari or whether it should wait until more circuits have ruled on the issue post-Badgerow.

The author plans to submit to an ADR trade publication an article analyzing and critiquing SmartSky in some detail. For now, we briefly summarize what transpired in SmartSky and the reasons the Court gave for its ruling. Continue Reading »

Status of Arbitration-Law Cases Pending Before SCOTUS this Term

February 12th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Appoint Arbitrator, Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Enforce Arbitral Summons, Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, CPR Alternatives, CPR Speaks Blog of the CPR Institute, CPR Video Interviews, Delegation Agreements, Exemption from FAA, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 16, FAA Section 3, FAA Transportation Worker Exemption, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Professor Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Comments Off

There are three arbitration-law cases pending before the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) this October 2023 Term. SCOTUS will presumably decide all three cases by this June, 2024.

The Cases: Bissonnette

The first is Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, No. 23-51 (U.S.), a case that concerns the scope of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which exempts from the FAA “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1 (the “Section 1 Exemption”). SCOTUS granted cert. in Bissonnette on September 29, 2023. As set forth in the question presented:

The First and Seventh Circuits have held that [the Section 1 Exemption] applies to any member of a class of workers that is engaged in foreign or interstate commerce in the same way as seamen and railroad employees-that is, any worker ‘actively engaged’ in the interstate transportation of goods. The Second and Eleventh Circuits have added an additional requirement: The worker’s employer must also be in the ‘transportation industry.’

The question presented is: To be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, must a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation also be employed by a company in the transportation industry?

(Bissonnette Question Presented Report)

We summarized the case briefly here and provided a link to an October 24, 2023 video conference in which 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 Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; Richard D. Faulkner, arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney, and former judge; and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr., about the case, its implications, and how SCOTUS might decide it. You can watch the video-conference interview here.

SCOTUS has set Bissonnette down for oral argument for Tuesday, February 20, 2024 (here). You can listen to SCOTUS arguments on C-Span or on the Court’s website.

The Cases: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (a/k/a “Coinbase II”)

The second case is Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, No. 23-3 (U.S.) (“Coinbase II”), a case that is related to Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 143 S. Ct. 1915 (2023) (“Coinbase I”), which was decided on June 23, 2023, and discussed here. Coinbase II concerns the application of a delegation provision—an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability disputes—contained in a contract (“Contract 1”) clearly and unmistakably requires the parties to submit to the arbitrator the question whether the Contract 1 arbitration agreement requires the parties to arbitrate disputes concerning a subsequent contract, Contract 2, even though Contract 2 does not provide for arbitration and requires the parties to submit all disputes concerning Contract 2 exclusively to litigation before the California courts. Is Contract 1’s delegation provision, as applied to the dispute over Contract 2, and in light of the parties’ agreement to litigate, not arbitrate, disputes concerning Contract 2, clear and unmistakable, as required by SCOTUS precedent? Or, as put differently by the question presented: “Where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, should an arbitrator or a court decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation?”

SCOTUS granted certiorari in Coinbase II on November 3, 2023, and on November 10, 2023, CPR’s Bleemer interviewed Professor Downes, Faulkner, and Loree about the certiorari grant, what it means, and how the Court might rule on it. You can watch the video-conference interview here. Our blog post about the interview and cert. grant is here.

Oral argument in Coinbase II has been scheduled for February 28, 2024.

Smith v. Spizzirri

The third case is Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218, which concerns FAA Section 3’s stay-of-litigation-pending-arbitration provision. The Court granted certiorari on January 12, 2024.

FAA Section 3 provides that, once a court determines that a dispute must be arbitrated, the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until” conclusion of the arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added). Most circuits addressing the question have determined that a stay is mandatory if requested. The Ninth Circuit, and a few others, have held that, despite the statute’s mandatory text, courts retain discretion to dismiss an action where all disputes in the action are subject to arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit below held that it was bound to follow prior precedent concerning discretion to dismiss (rather than stay), even though it acknowledged that the statute’s “plain text” suggests otherwise. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the circuit split and two judges, in an occurring opinion, encouraged “the Supreme Court to take up this question.” (See Question Presented Report.)

The question presented to SCOTUS is “[w]hether Section 3 of the FAA requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.” (See Question Presented Report.)

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled and merits briefs have not yet been filed.

The case is more noteworthy than may initially meet the eye. It has important implications concerning appealability. If an action is stayed, rather than dismissed, a granted motion to compel arbitration cannot be immediately appealed, see 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1),(2), (3) & (4); but if a motion to compel is granted, and the action is dismissed, then the right to appeal the denial begins to run immediately. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3); Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 85-89 (2000). If a Section 3 stay is mandatory when requested, then there will presumably be fewer cases where courts compel arbitration and dismiss (rather than stay) the underlying lawsuit, and therefore fewer cases where a grant of a motion to compel or denial of a motion to stay or enjoin arbitration is immediately appealable.

The subject matter jurisdiction implications of the case are equally significant. As we explained in a recent post, under Badgerow, a court’s federal-question subject matter jurisdiction can, for purposes of a motion to compel arbitration, be based on whether the underlying dispute would fall under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

But subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to confirm or vacate an award resulting from that arbitration cannot, after Badgerow, be based on such “look through” jurisdiction. An independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction must appear from the face of the petition and cannot be based on whether a court would have federal question jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.

As we explained in our Badgerow post, in cases where a Section 3 stay has been requested and granted, there may nevertheless be a so-called “jurisdictional anchor” on which subject matter jurisdiction over subsequent motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards, to enforce arbitral subpoenas, or appoint arbitrators may be based. Under that jurisdictional anchor theory as long as the court stays the litigation, the court would retain its subject matter jurisdiction, and could exercise it to grant subsequent motions for FAA relief. While there remains a question whether the jurisdictional anchor theory survived Badgerow, the theory makes sense, even under Badgerow, and is supported by pre-Badgerow case law. (See Badgerow Post.)

If the Court in Spizzirri rules that a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration must be granted if supported and requested, then it will presumably be easier for parties to assert subject matter jurisdiction based on a jurisdictional anchor theory.

Contacting the Author

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

Philip J. Loree Jr. (bio, here) has more than 30 years of experience handling matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act and in representing a wide variety of clients in arbitration, litigation, and arbitration-related-litigation. He is licensed to practice law in New York and before various federal district courts and circuit courts of appeals.

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.

Weighing the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Post-Badgerow Second Circuit Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements for Applications to Confirm, Modify, or Vacate Arbitration Awards

Jurisdictional Anchor | Subject Matter Jurisdiction The U.S. Supreme Court decision, Badgerow v. Walters, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) (discussed here), requires that an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (usually diversity) must appear on the face of petitions to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards, and, by extension, petitions to enforce arbitral subpoenas or appoint arbitrators. See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1314, 1320. That independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction cannot be established by “looking through” to the underlying arbitration proceeding. In other words, the federal court cannot base subject matter jurisdiction on whether the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of the controversy had they been submitted it to court rather than to arbitration. See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1314, 1320.

Badgerow does not change the rule that federal question jurisdiction over a Section 4 petition to compel arbitration can be established by “looking through” to the underlying dispute that is or is claimed to be subject to arbitration. 142 S. Ct. at 1314; see Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 53 (2009); Hermès of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, 867 F.3d 321, 324-26 (2d Cir. 2017) (diversity of citizenship not determined by “look through”).

Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act expressly authorizes a Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction on that basis: “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; see Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1317.

Unlike Section 4, Sections 5 (appointment of arbitrators), 7 (arbitral subpoena enforcement), 9 (confirmation of awards), 10 (vacatur of awards), and 11 (modification of awards), do not expressly authorize the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction on a “look through” basis. See 142 S. Ct. at 1317-18; 9 U.S.C. §§ 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, & 11.

Badgerow, in the specific context of an action commenced by petition to vacate an award under FAA Section 10—which, in turn, prompted a cross-petition to confirm under FAA Section 9—held that the absence in Sections 9 and 10 of Section 4’s express language authorizing subject matter jurisdiction based on “look through” meant that Congress did not authorize “look through” subject matter jurisdiction for Section 9 and 10 claims (and presumably for claims seeking relief under Sections 5, 7, or 11). See 142 S. Ct. at 1319.

An independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction is required, and in the absence of a federal question appearing on the face of the petition (such as a claim for relief under Chapter Two of the FAA, see 9 U.S.C. § 203; 28 U.S.C. § 1331), the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). And there could be no diversity jurisdiction in Badgerow because the parties to the petitions were citizens of the same state. See 142 S. Ct. at 1316.

Badgerow’s reasoning certainly applies to independent, summary proceedings in which the only relief sought is under the FAA. But does it apply with equal force where litigation on the merits of an arbitrable or allegedly arbitrable dispute has commenced, and the motion to compel arbitration is made by motion in the pending action, which is stayed pending arbitration? Can the stayed merits litigation act as what former Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in his Badgerow dissent, referred to as a “jurisdictional anchor” for not only the motion to compel arbitration, but also other subsequent applications for pre- or post-award FAA relief relating to the arbitration? See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1326 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

That is an open question in the Second Circuit after Badgerow, although pre-Badgerow the answer was yes. Let’s look at it more closely and try to get a sense of how the Second Circuit might rule on it considering Badgerow. Continue Reading »

Subject Matter Jurisdiction in FAA Proceedings: Eighth Circuit Demonstrates It’s a Trap for the Unwary

Introduction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Petition to Confirm | Petition to Vacate The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently decided a case that provides a good—and simple—example of how subject matter jurisdiction can be a trap for the unwary, especially for parties seeking to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). In Prospect Funding Holdings (N.Y.) v. Ronald J. Palagi, P.C., No. 22-1871, slip op. (8^th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023), the Eighth Circuit vacated a district court’s judgment vacating two arbitration awards because the petitioner failed to plead the citizenship of the parties and therefore could not establish the requisite independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. But there was more to it than that. Continue Reading »

Second Circuit Clarifies Rules Governing Forum Selection Clauses

August 7th, 2023 Amount in Controversy, Appellate Practice, Arbitration Law, Conflict of Laws, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Courts, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Forum Selection Agreements, Jurisdiction Clause, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Venue 1 Comment »

Forum Selection Clauses: Introduction to Kelman

Sometimes appellate courts render opinions that helpfully explain somewhat complexed or arcane procedural rules. The Second Circuit’s decision in Rabinowitz v. Kelman, No. 22-1747, slip op. (July 24, 2023) is of this ilk, and is one that should be consulted not only when litigating forum-selection-related issues, but also for purposes of drafting forum selection clauses.

Kelman— which arose out of a petition filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) to confirm a rabbinical arbitration award—addressed two issues: (1) whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction where the amount of controversy and diversity of citizen requirements were met but the court was not one expressly contemplated by the forum selection clause; and (2) whether the forum selection clause was mandatory or permissive, that is, whether it required the action to be brought in one of the fora specified in the clause and no other.

The Court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)) because the petitioner adequately pleaded diverse citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and because the parties lacked the power to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction by agreement, including by agreement to a forum selection clause.

It further held that the “forum selection clauses” were “permissive arrangements that merely allow litigation in certain fora, rather than mandatory provisions that require litigation to occur only there.” Slip op. at 32. Under a “modified forum non conveniens” analysis prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, the forum selection clauses did not bar litigation brought in the SDNY. Slip op. at 32. The Court accordingly vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court. Slip op. at 32. Continue Reading »

Posts Tagged ‘Subject Matter Jurisdiction’

CPR’s March 27 Appellate Arbitration Video Panel: Jules, Flowers Foods, Goff, and Bruce

The March 27, 2026, Video

What the March 27, 2026, Video Shows About the Current State of Arbitration Law

Contacting the Author

Photo Acknowledgment

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

Petition to Vacate: Background

Discussion: No Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Petition to Vacate

Contacting the Author

Photo Acknowledgment

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

Background

The Action II Court Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

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

Background

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

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

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

Background

SmartSky: Fourth Circuit Says No Jurisdictional Anchor Post Badgerow

Introduction

Badgerow

A “Jurisdictional Anchor” Post-Badgerow?

SmartSky Caused a Circuit Split Concerning the Viability of Anchor Jurisdiction

SmartSky’s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Status of Arbitration-Law Cases Pending Before SCOTUS this Term

The Cases: Bissonnette

The Cases: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (a/k/a “Coinbase II”)

Smith v. Spizzirri

Weighing the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Post-Badgerow Second Circuit Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements for Applications to Confirm, Modify, or Vacate Arbitration Awards

Subject Matter Jurisdiction in FAA Proceedings: Eighth Circuit Demonstrates It’s a Trap for the Unwary

Introduction

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Posts Tagged ‘Subject Matter Jurisdiction’

The March 27, 2026, Video

What the March 27, 2026, Video Shows About the Current State of Arbitration Law

Contacting the Author

Photo Acknowledgment

Share this Post on:

Petition to Vacate: Background

Discussion: No Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Petition to Vacate

Contacting the Author

Photo Acknowledgment

Share this Post on:

Background

The Action II Court Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Share this Post on:

Background

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

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

Share this Post on:

Background

Share this Post on:

Introduction

Badgerow

A “Jurisdictional Anchor” Post-Badgerow?

SmartSky Caused a Circuit Split Concerning the Viability of Anchor Jurisdiction

SmartSky’s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Share this Post on:

The Cases: Bissonnette

The Cases: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (a/k/a “Coinbase II”)

Smith v. Spizzirri

Share this Post on:

Share this Post on:

Introduction

Share this Post on:

Forum Selection Clauses: Introduction to Kelman

Share this Post on:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.