Highlights
- Federal jurisdiction may not be available for petitions to confirm or vacate a domestic arbitration award when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involves a federal question.
- The U.S. Supreme Court held that the "look through" approach is limited to petitions under Section 4 and refused extending it to petitions under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
In a recent decision involving arbitration, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a domestic arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involves a federal question. In so doing, the court eschewed extending the "look through" provision of Section 4 of the FAA, which allows a court to look at the subject matter of the underlying dispute when determining whether it has jurisdiction to hear a motion to compel arbitration, to a motion to confirm or vacate an award. The case is Denise A. Badgerow, v. Greg Walters, et al., No. 20-1143, 2022 WL 959675 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2022).
Background
Denise Badgerow, an associate financial advisor with a Louisiana financial service company, initiated a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration proceeding against the three principals of the corporation after her termination. Badgerow sought damages for tortious interference of contract and for...
