September 16, 2019Charleston Partner Andrew Connor Selected to Become DLI Riley Fellow
February 15, 2019
Federal Bar Association's SideBar Newsletter
Arbitration is a popular forum for dispute resolution, but enforcement of an arbitration award may require that it be confirmed by a court in the form of a judgment. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), provides in 9 U.S.C. § 9, that parties may specify the court in which a petition to confirm shall be filed, or if they do not, “then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made.”2 Sections 10 and 11, governing petitions to vacate or to modify an award, also refer only to “the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made. . . .” But neither the parties’ agreement nor the FAA statutes can guarantee that a federal district court will have federal question jurisdiction to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award.
Notably, parties to an arbitration are free to agree to seek to confirm or vacate an award in state courts, thus, avoiding issues of federal jurisdiction. However, because the FAA does not itself confer federal jurisdiction, federal district courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions brought under the Act only if an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists. In that regard, the FAA has been called “something of an anomaly” in the realm of federal legislation, because it bestows no federal jurisdiction but rather requires for access to a federal forum an independent jurisdictional basis over the parties’ dispute.3 A conflict between the circuits has arisen as to whether federal question jurisdiction should be determined from the face of a petition brought under the FAA—similar to any complaint brought in federal court—or whether, in this context, courts should “look through” the petition to the underlying controversy in arbitration.
The conflict arises from Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), which construed § 4 of the FAA, governing petitions to compel arbitration. Based on the unique language of that statute, the majority of a divided Court held that district courts may “look through” a petition to compel arbitration and consider the nature of the underlying dispute when deciding if federal question jurisdiction exists. However, the federal circuit courts of appeals are divided as to whether Vaden’s “look through” approach also applies to petitions brought under other sections of the FAA, §§ 9-11 petitions to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards.4
These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.