 |
(A version of this article appears in the California
Construction Law Reporter, published by the West Group.)
By James Acret
A
dispute between an owner and a contractor arising from construction
of a mill in Mississippi was decided by arbitration in Alabama.
Owner filed a petition to vacate the award in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Seven days
later, contractor filed a petition to confirm the award
in the Northern District of Alabama. The Alabama court refused
to dismiss, transfer or stay its action and entered judgment
for contractor. The 11th Circuit held that under the Federal
Arbitration Act venue is exclusively in the district where
the award was made. REVERSED. Cortez Bird Chips, Inc.
v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., ___ S.Ct. ___, 2000
Daily Journal D.A.R. 2983.
The
U.S. Supreme Court held the venue provisions of the FAA
are permissive, and a motion to confirm, vacate or modify
an award may be brought either in the district where the
award was made or in any other district proper under the
general venue statute. The owner's motion was clearly proper
because it was filed where the contract was performed. Although
the language of §§9 to 11 of 9 U.S.C. is ambiguous,
the history of the enactment of the FAA shows that Congress
intended to liberalize and not restrict venue.
If
you would like to receive legal reports and updates more
quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form. If you would like to subscribe to our RSS feeds or learn more about RSS, click here.
For more information about books and other legal materials written by James Acret, click here and enter "Acret" in the site search engine.
©2000
ConstructionWebLinks, Inc.
|
