9 U.S.C. § 204
Venue
An action or proceeding over which the district courts have jurisdiction pursuant to section 203 of this title may be brought in any such court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with respect to the controversy between the parties could be brought, or in such court for the district and division which embraces the place designated in the agreement as the place of arbitration if such place is within the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 42 F.4th 1131 (9th Cir. 2022).
Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 42 F.4th 1131 (9th Cir. 2022). “” 9 U.S.C. § 204 . Jones Day asserts that § 204 is a non-exclusive venue provision that supplements, rather than supplants, other venue rules.”
BG Grp., PLC v. Repub. of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014). “6997 (New York Convention) (providing that a party may apply "for recognition and enforcement" of an arbitral award subject to the Convention); 9 U.S.C. §§ 204 , 207 (providing that a party may move "for an order confirming [an arbitral] award" in a federal court of the "place…”
Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte Int'l GMBH, 921 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2019). “See 9 U.S.C. § 204 ("An action or proceeding over which the district courts have jurisdiction pursuant to section 203 of this title may be brought in any such court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with respect to the controversy between the…”
DiMercurio v. Sphere Drake Ins., PLC, 202 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2000). “” 9 U.S.C. § 204 (emphasis added). The difference in language reflects the modern view that arbitration agreements do not divest courts of jurisdiction, though they prevent courts from resolving the merits of arbitrable disputes.”
Phoenix Aktiengesellschaft v. Ecoplas, Inc. (Formerly Known as Plastek Corp., Formerly Known as Plaslok Corp.), 391 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2004). “See also 9 U.S.C. § 204 (providing that an action pursuant to the Convention "may be brought in any such court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with respect to the controversy between the parties could be brought, or in such court for the…”
Commissions Imp. Exp. S.A. v. Repub. of the Congo, 757 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “That court transferred the case to the federal court in the District of Columbia, see 9 U.S.C. § 204 , and the Company amended and supplemented its complaint to recognize and enforce the English Judgment under the D.”
Ipitrade Int'l, S.A. v. Fed. Repub. of Nigeria, 465 F. Supp. 824 (D.D.C. 1978). “§ 1330 (a), and venue lies in the District of Columbia under 9 U.S.C. § 204 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (f)(4).”
PMA Capital Ins. v. Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd., 659 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2009). “” 9 U.S.C. § 204 . Pursuant to the designation in the 2003 Agreement, the Arbitration took place in this District.”
Championsworld, LLC v. United States Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2012). “Venue 9 U.S.C. § 204 makes enforcement of a Convention award appropriate in the jurisdiction where, “save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with respect to the controversy between the parties could be brought[.”
Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Asamera (South Sumatra) Ltd., 798 F. Supp. 400 (W.D. Tex. 1992). “9 U.S.C. § 204 . The question, however, is whether an action to vacate an arbitral award is “an action or proceeding falling under the Convention.”
Consorcio Rive, S.A. De C v. v. Briggs of Cancun, Inc., 134 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. La. 2001). “9 U.S.C. § 204 . 5. Under 9 U.S.C. § 202 , the following arbitration awards fall under the Convention: An arbitration agreement or arbitral award arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered as commercial, including a transaction,…”
Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B v. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “” 9 U.S.C. § 204 . Moreover, the Tribunal in Miami decided the same issues that Consorcio now insists require review by Venezuelan courts.”
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.