9 U.S.C. § 203
Jurisdiction; amount in controversy
An action or proceeding falling under the Convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States. The district courts of the United States (including the courts enumerated in section 460 of title 28) shall have original jurisdiction over such an action or proceeding, regardless of the amount in controversy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 412
cases (142 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH
Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH (2019)
“Del Monte then removed the petition to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205, as well as 28 U.”
Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (2022)
“FAA Chapter Two’s jurisdictional provision, 9 U.S.C. § 203 , provides federal district courts with original jurisdiction over actions or proceedings falling under the New York Convention.”
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010)
“, at A–15 to A–16, ¶9 (invok ing the District Court’s jurisdiction under 9 U. S. C. §203 and 28 U. S. C. §§1331 and 1333).”
Vaden v. Discover Bank (2009)
“See 9 U. S. C. §203 (“An action or proceeding falling under the Convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States.”
Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (2009)
“JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203 to determine whether the removed action related to a commercial arbitration agreement within the purview of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign…”
CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc. (2017)
“Under Section 202, actions or proceedings that “fall[ ] under the [New York] Convention” include “arbitration agreements] or arbitral award[s] arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered as commercial” between any parties, unless both…”
Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd. (1997)
“See 9 U.S.C. §§ 203 , 205. Presently before the Court are defendants’ motion to stay the action pending arbitration and plaintiffs cross-motion to remand the action to state court.”
Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc. (2009)
“9 U.S.C. § 203 . “Original jurisdiction” is defined as “[a] court’s power to hear and decide a matter before any other court can review the matter.”
Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.S. (2014)
“era reads this provision as an implicit agreement to waive any defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction and to consent to the jurisdiction of any court in any country in the world with subject matter jurisdiction over enforcement actions brought pursuant to the 1958 United…”
ESAB Group, Incorporated v. Zurich Insurance PLC (2012)
“" 9 U.S.C. § 203 . Seizing on this lan- guage, ZIP contends that the district court had original juris- diction over all claims against it in this action, regardless of whether each claim involved a contract containing a foreign arbitral agreement.”
Casa Del Caffe Vergnano S.P.A. v. Italflavors, LLC (2016)
“§ 1331 and 9 U.S.C. § 203 (the Federal Arbitration Act) because the case arose under the Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards.”
Brittania-U Nigeria, Limited v. Chevron USA, Incor (2017)
“§ 1332 , and second, that federal question jurisdiction exists under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Ar-bitral Awards (the “Convention”), 9 U.S.C. § 203 . However, Brittania-U argues that Chevron improperly removed under both statutes so that the…”
— 9 U.S.C. § 203(j) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.