What the Supreme Court's Jules v. Andre Balazs Ruling Means for Arbitration Jurisdiction

Manatt Appellate Partner and Litigation Associate co-authored an article for Daily Journal on the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties and its implications for businesses and litigants navigating arbitration jurisdiction.

The piece breaks down the Court's ruling that a federal court, which previously stayed claims under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitration award, resolving a circuit split between the 4th Circuit and the 2nd, 3rd and 7th Circuits. Howe and Horner explain that the decision increases forum predictability from the onset of a case, reduces post-arbitration jurisdictional fights and makes removal strategy more consequential for businesses that regularly invoke arbitration clauses.

“In light of this decision, plaintiffs may be more inclined to simply honor an arbitration clause rather than filing in state or federal court. Now, plaintiffs cannot assume they can invoke federal jurisdiction to litigate claims and then disclaim it once arbitration ends,” the authors wrote.

Read the full Daily Journal column .