9 U.S.C. § 5
Appointment of arbitrators or umpire
If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be followed; but if no method be provided therein, or if a method be provided and any party thereto shall fail to avail himself of such method, or if for any other reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, or in filling a vacancy, then upon the application of either party to the controversy the court shall designate and appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may require, who shall act under the said agreement with the same force and effect as if he or they had been specifically named therein; and unless otherwise provided in the agreement the arbitration shall be by a single arbitrator.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 435
cases (93 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: BP Expl. Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya L, 689 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2012).
BP Expl. Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya L, 689 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2012). “Now on appeal, we hold that there was a lapse in the naming of arbitrators in the parties’ agreement, that the district court was authorized to exercise appointment power under 9 U.S.C. § 5 , and that the district court erred in deviating from the parties’ express agreement to…”
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Robert J. & Billye S. Front, etc., 745 S.E.2d 556 (W. Va. 2013). “Where an arbitration agreement names a forum for arbitration that is unavailable or has failed for some reason, a court may appoint a substitute forum pursuant to section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 5 (1947) (2006 ed.), only if the choice of forum is an…”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins., 609 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2010). “n an arbitral panel due to the death of an arbitrator prior to the rendering of an award, a new panel should be convened — does not apply to a vacancy occasioned by a resignation, and that, in the instant case, the district court’s decision either to reappoint the arbitrator who…”
Wert v. ManorCare of Carlisle PA, LLC, 124 A.3d 1248 (Pa. 2015). “9 U.S.C. § 5 . [J-24-2015] - 7 assert that a court should only decline to appoint a substitute arbitrator and cancel the entire agreement if the choice of forum is “‘so central to the arbitration agreement that the unavailability of that arbitrator [brings] the agreement to an…”
Adam Tech. Int'l S.A. De C v. v. Sutherland Global Servs., Inc., 729 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2013). “While that motion was pending, and using the same cause number, Adam filed a motion to appoint an arbitrator under 9 U.S.C. § 5 on December 14, 2011. Adam argued in part that Spellane’s disqualification by the ICDR was procedurally faulty because Sutherland failed to make a…”
Joyce Green v. U.S. Cash Advance Illinois, 724 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2013). “The lender asked the district court to appoint a substitute arbitrator under 9 U.S.C. §5 . The judge declined, stating that the identity of the Forum as the arbitrator is “an integral part of the agreement”, that ¶17 is void, and that the dispute will be resolved on the merits…”
Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., 328 F.3d 462 (8th Cir. 2003). “When the parties could not agree on a replacement process, NAICO filed suit in district court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 5 seeking a court-appointed replacement.”
Acequip Ltd. v. Am. Eng'g Corp., 315 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2003). “9 U.S.C. § 5 . Connecticut law contains a similar provision, stating: (a) If, in a written agreement to arbitrate, a method of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire has been provided, the method shall be followed.”
MacPherson v. Magee Mem'l Hosp. for Convalescence, 128 A.3d 1209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “9 U.S.C. § 5 . . We reject the dissent's suggestion that because the arbitration agreement in Wert is substantially similar to the Agreement herein, Wert compels affirmance of the instant case.”
In Re Serv. Corp. Int'l, 355 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. 2011). “1 See 9 U.S.C. § 5 ; In re La. Pac. Corp., 972 S.”
Ragab v. Howard, 841 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2016). “See 9 U.S.C. § 5 ; Green v. U.S. Cash Advance Ill.”
Jones v. Ggnsc Pierre LLC, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D.S.D. 2010). “Based on the language of the arbitration contract in this case, the provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 5 and a South Dakota statute, and the circumstances of this case, the Court grants in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings and for Order Compelling Arbitration (Doc.”
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.