Aug 12, 2026 · 41 min · 12 segments
In episode 44 of the Supreme Court Opinions Read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in *Jules v Andre Balasz Properties*. At issue in this case, whether a federal court that stayed a case…
This case presents the question whether a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under Section Three of the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims, even when the motion to confirm under Section Nine or the motion to vacate under Section Ten does not independently present a basis for federal jurisdiction on its face.
Between 2017 and 2020, Petitioner Adrian Jules worked at the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles, California.
Citing an arbitration agreement Jules had signed before beginning work at the hotel, respondents moved to stay federal proceedings pending arbitration under Section Three of the FAA.
The district court held that the arbitration agreement covered Jules' claims and stayed proceedings.
The arbitrator issued a final award, ruling against Jules on all claims and awarding approximately $34,500 in sanctions to respondents.
Back in the same district court that had previously stayed Jules' claims pending arbitration, respondents moved to confirm the award under Section Nine.
Jules opposed confirmation while cross-moving to vacate the arbitral award under Section Ten on various grounds.
Jules argued that under Badroe versus Walters, the district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the award because the Section Nine and Section Ten motions neither presented federal questions nor satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
The district court disagreed and confirmed the arbitral award.
The Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Badroe involved a freestanding action commenced for the sole purpose of vacating an arbitral award, but that the present action was distinct because it started as a federal question suit before it was stayed pending arbitration.
The Second Circuit held that a court with the power to stay an action under Section Three has the further power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award, regardless of whether there is an independent jurisdictional basis for the Section Nine and Section Ten proceedings.
Held, a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under Section Three of the FAA has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims as prescribed in Section Nine and Section Ten of the FAA.
This case presents the question whether a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under Section Three of the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims, even when the motion to confirm under Section Nine or the motion to vacate under Section Ten does not independently present a basis for federal jurisdiction on its face.
Between 2017 and 2020, Petitioner Adrian Jules worked at the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles, California.
Citing an arbitration agreement Jules had signed before beginning work at the hotel, respondents moved to stay federal proceedings pending arbitration under Section Three of the FAA.
The district court held that the arbitration agreement covered Jules' claims and stayed proceedings.
The arbitrator issued a final award, ruling against Jules on all claims and awarding approximately $34,500 in sanctions to respondents.
Back in the same district court that had previously stayed Jules' claims pending arbitration, respondents moved to confirm the award under Section Nine.
Jules opposed confirmation while cross-moving to vacate the arbitral award under Section Ten on various grounds.
Jules argued that under Badroe versus Walters, the district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the award because the Section Nine and Section Ten motions neither presented federal questions nor satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
The district court disagreed and confirmed the arbitral award.
The Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Badroe involved a freestanding action commenced for the sole purpose of vacating an arbitral award, but that the present action was distinct because it started as a federal question suit before it was stayed pending arbitration.
The Second Circuit held that a court with the power to stay an action under Section Three has the further power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award, regardless of whether there is an independent jurisdictional basis for the Section Nine and Section Ten proceedings.
Held, a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under Section Three of the FAA has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims as prescribed in Section Nine and Section Ten of the FAA.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
