9 U.S.C. § 205
Removal of cases from State courts
Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention, the defendant or the defendants may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending. The procedure for removal of causes otherwise provided by law shall apply, except that the ground for removal provided in this section need not appear on the face of the complaint but may be shown in the petition for removal. For the purposes of Chapter 1 of this title any action or proceeding removed under this section shall be deemed to have been brought in the district court to which it is removed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 274
cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2010). “Shortly thereafter, the reinsurers removed the case to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the removal provision in 9 U.S.C. § 205 , [6] and filed a motion to confirm the award.”
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999). “274; and 9 U. S. C. §205 , which authorizes removal of cases “relating] to” international arbitration agreements.”
ENSCO Int'l, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 579 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2009). “See 9 U.S.C. § 205 . [1] ENSCO moved to remand, asserting that the forum selection clause, by establishing "exclusive" jurisdiction, effected a waiver of the right to remove.”
Ge Energy Power Conversion Fr. Sas, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020). “GE Energy removed the case to federal court under 9 U. S. C. §205 . It then moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration clauses in the F.”
Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharm., Inc., 631 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2011). “SMITH, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we primarily address the novel question whether, under 9 U.S.C. § 205 , a district court has removal jurisdiction 1 over a case where the defendant raises an affirmative defense related to an arbitral award falling under the Convention on…”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Warrantech Corp., 461 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2006). “6 After Underwriters added San Antonio to the litigation, the case was removed under 9 U.S.C. § 205 , 7 with Appellants asserting res judicata and collateral estoppel affir *571 mative defenses based on the arbitration award to Houston General.”
Banco De Santander Cent. Hispano, S.A. v. Consalvi Int'l Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “9 U.S.C. § 205 . Seven days later, Consalvi filed its cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.”
Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). “See 9 U.S.C. § 205 . 3 In the notices of *1293 removal filed with the district court, NCL described how the crewmembers were bound by employment agreements that include an arbitration provision covered by the Convention.”
Repub. of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “§ 203 , and also provides for removal to federal court “[wjhere the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a state court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention,” 9 U.S.C.A. § 205 . Chapter Three of the FAA, implementing the…”
Dahiya v. Talmidge Int'l, Ltd., 371 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2004). “§ 1441 (b) (West 1994), and under § 205 of the Convention, 9 U.S.C.A. § 205 (West 1999), 2 and removed to federal court.”
Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc., 51 V.I. 174 (2009). “9 U.S.C. § 205 (emphasis added). Since the plain text of the statute allows a defendant to, at his discretion, choose to litigate the matter in either state or federal court, the clear implication is that the state court has jurisdiction to actually conduct a trial and render a…”
Cerner Middle East Ltd. v. Belbadi Enter. LLC, 939 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2019). “9 U.S.C. § 205 authorizes the removal by a defendant of an action previously filed in state court if the action relates to an arbitration agreement or award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.”
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.