9 U.S.C. § 4

Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 9 CasesGoogle Scholar

A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. Five days’ notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the party in default. Service thereof shall be made in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed. If the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof. If no jury trial be demanded by the party alleged to be in default, or if the matter in dispute is within admiralty jurisdiction, the court shall hear and determine such issue. Where such an issue is raised, the party alleged to be in default may, except in cases of admiralty, on or before the return day of the notice of application, demand a jury trial of such issue, and upon such demand the court shall make an order referring the issue or issues to a jury in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or may specially call a jury for that purpose. If the jury find that no agreement in writing for arbitration was made or that there is no default in proceeding thereunder, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the jury find that an agreement for arbitration was made in writing and that there is a default in proceeding thereunder, the court shall make an order summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4,389 cases (1,680 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Finance AG

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Finance AG (2012) ca2 · cites it 34× “As previously noted, ISC purported voluntarily to dismiss its petition to compel arbitration (filed pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4 ) on the authority of Fed. R.”

Ryan D. Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc. (2017) ca11 · cites it 17× “§ 3 1 and 9 U.S.C. § 4 2 to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration in accordance with the arbitration terms of an employment contract purportedly signed by Burch.”

Berkeley County School Dist. v. HUB International Limited (2019) ca4 · cites it 10× “Because federal law, that is, 9 U.S.C. § 4 , requires those disputes to be resolved in trial proceedings, we vacate and remand.”

Vaden v. Discover Bank (2009) scotus · cites it 8× “Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §4 , authorizes a United States district court to entertain a petition to compel arbitration if the court would have jurisdiction, “save for [the arbitration] agreement,” over “a suit arising out of the controversy between the…”

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) scotus · cites it 6× “” 9 U. S. C. §4 . Section 16 of the Act then says that “an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order .”

Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The American Arbitration Association (2006) ca9 · cites it 5× “Finally, because it found that the parties had agreed to arbitrate in Boston, Massachusetts, not the district in which the court presides, see 9 U.S.C. § 4 , it dismissed the action, permitting MailCoups to move in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts to compel…”

Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (2010) ca3 · cites it 10× “§ 2 , and it entitles any "party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration" to obtain a "[court] order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.”

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983) scotus · cites it 4× “This case, commenced as a petition for an order to compel arbitration under § 4 of the United States Arbitration Act of 1925 (Arbitration Act or Act), 9 U. S. C. § 4 , presents the question whether, in light of the policies of the Act and of our decisions in Colorado River Water…”

Bill Hansen v. Lmb Mortgage Services, Inc. (2021) ca9 · cites it 5× “But in order to ensure consistency with the procedures required by 9 U.S.C. § 4 , we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.”

Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010) scotus · cites it 4× “Should petitioners refuse to proceed with what they maintain is essentially an ultra vires proceeding, they would almost certainly be subject to a petition to compel arbitration under 9 U. S. C. §4 . Cf. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.”

Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) cal · cites it 8× “§§ 1-16 ), the federal provision for a jury trial of questions regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement ( 9 U.S.C. § 4 ) does not operate in California state courts.”

Marks 3-Zet-Ernst Marks GmBh & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc. (2006) ca1 · cites it 12× “District Court in New Hampshire under the New York Convention, as implemented by 9 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 206. Marks’ petition was filed one day after the New Hampshire three-year statute of limitations on contract actions had expired, assuming that the cause of action accrued on April…”

Show all 4,389 citing cases →

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.