Professor Tom Stipanowich Cited in Supreme Court Case Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich is cited in the Supreme Court case Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties. The case addresses whether a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award as to those claims under §9 and §10. 

From the Opinion of the Court in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties: 

Here, the District Court had original jurisdiction, under 28 U. S. C. §1331, over Jules’s federal claims. It was this very jurisdiction that authorized the court to adjudicate the arbitrability of Jules’s claims under the parties’ contract to begin with, before staying litigation pending arbitration. Nothing in the FAA eliminated that jurisdiction while the parties arbitrated. See Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S. 576, 581 (2008) (“As for jurisdiction over controversies touching arbitration, the [FAA] does nothing”). So when the parties returned to court after arbitration with §9 and §10 motions, the court had the same “jurisdiction to decide the case,” and thus “jurisdiction to decide th[ose] motion[s],” that it possessed from the start. Badgerow, 596 U. S., at 15. “The court had federal question subject matter jurisdiction and . . . never lost it.” 1 I. Macneil, R. Speidel, & T. Stipanowich, Federal Arbitration Law §9.2.3.1, p. 9:13 (1995).

The complete opinion may be found at Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties