9 U.S.C. § 206
Order to compel arbitration; appointment of arbitrators
A court having jurisdiction under this chapter may direct that arbitration be held in accordance with the agreement at any place therein provided for, whether that place is within or without the United States. Such court may also appoint arbitrators in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 211
cases (57 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011).
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011). “23, 2009); see also 9 U.S.C. § 206 ("A court having jurisdiction under this chapter may direct that arbitration be held in accordance with the agreement at any place therein provided for, whether that place is within or without the United States.”
Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc., 51 V.I. 174 (2009). “Although Congress’s enabling legislation states that “[a] court having jurisdiction under this chapter may direct that arbitration be held in accordance with the agreement at any place therein provided for, whether that place is within or without the United States,” 9 U.S.C. §…”
Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int'l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2009). “This case arises from a motion to compel arbitration filed under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 206 , by AiG, a Kentucky non-profit corporation headquartered in Petersburg, Kentucky, against CMI, an Australian non-profit corporation organized under the laws of…”
Intergen N v. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003). “” 9 U.S.C. § 206 . Federal district courts have taken this grant of authority at face value and regularly have compelled arbitrations at venues beyond the ordering court’s jurisdiction.”
Abigail Bacon v. Avis Budget Grp. Inc, 959 F.3d 590 (3rd Cir. 2020). “§§ 3 and 4 in their motions, they initially sought to compel arbitration of the Costa Rica Agreement in Costa Rica, so to the extent the Costa Rica Agreement can be read as requiring arbitration to take place in Costa Rica, the District Court’s authority to compel arbitration as…”
Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 42 F.4th 1131 (9th Cir. 2022). “That would confine § 203 jurisdiction to just three types of actions or proceedings: orders to compel arbitration, 9 U.S.C. § 206 ; appointments of arbitrators in accordance with an arbitration agreement, id.”
Control Screening LLC v. Technological Application & Prod. Co. (Tecapro), HCMC-Vietnam, 687 F.3d 163 (3rd Cir. 2012). “Chapter 2 of the FAA creates two causes of action in federal court: (1) an action to compel arbitration in accord with the terms of the arbitration agreement, see 9 U.S.C. § 206 , and (2) an action to confirm an arbitral award made pursuant to an arbitration agreement, see 9 U.”
Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 293 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2002). “Francisco filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and Stolt filed a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 206 . The district court denied the motion to remand, granted the motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the suit.”
Willman Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 822 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 2016). “Basically, thé Convention Act creates two causes of action in federal court for a party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement that falls under the New York Convention: a motion to compel arbitration “in accordance with the agreement,” 9 U.S.C. § 206 ; and a motion to…”
Internaves de Mexico S.A. de C v. v. Andromeda S.S. Corp., 898 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2018). “After thorough review, we hold that, despite the Contract's apparent conflict about choice of forum, under the Conflict Clause, the parties provided for arbitration in London, under English law, and the district court should have upheld the parties' forum selection under 9…”
Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr. Inc., 452 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2006). “9 U.S.C. § 206 . 4 Because “uniformity is best served by trying all [Convention] cases in federal court unless the parties unequivocally choose otherwise,” McDermott Int’l, Inc.”
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Robert J. & Billye S. Front, etc., 745 S.E.2d 556 (W. Va. 2013). “§ 16 (West 1990) (“Subdivision (a) of § 16 enumerates the situations in which an immediate appeal from an arbitrability determination is allowed.”
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.