9 U.S.C. § 7

Witnesses before arbitrators; fees; compelling attendance

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

The arbitrators selected either as prescribed in this title or otherwise, or a majority of them, may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. The fees for such attendance shall be the same as the fees of witnesses before masters of the United States courts. Said summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be signed by the arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be directed to the said person and shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court; if any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before said arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for contempt in the same manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses or their punishment for neglect or refusal to attend in the courts of the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 130 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., 939 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., 939 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 15× “6 Case: 17-13761 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 Page: 7 of 34 pursuant to 9 U.S.C § 7. CIGNA then moved to strike MCAG’s motion to enforce the summonses.”

Washington Nat'l Ins. Co. v. OBEX Grp. LLC, & Randall, 958 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “OBEX Group LLC, and Randall Katzenstein 9 U.S.C. § 7 . The summonses here accorded with section 7.”

Beck's Superior Hybrids, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. & Monsanto Tech. LLC, 940 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 26× “See 9 U.S.C. § 7 (2010). Cognizant of the fact that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to file a petition in the New York federal court, and that that court lacked personal jurisdiction over Beck's, Monsanto instead filed a petition to assist in the Hamilton Superior Court,…”

Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 42 F.4th 1131 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “See 9 U.S.C. § 7 . Reasoning that “it is undisputed that Washington D.”

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002). · cites it 2× “, Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 7 ; 28 U. S. C. § 653 ; Uniform Arbitration Act § 7, 7 U.”

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (1993). · cites it 2× “See 9 U. S. C. § 7 ; 29 U. S. C. § 1401 (b)(3) (making specific reference to subpoena power).”

Aubie BALTIN; Gwilda Baltin, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. ALARON TRADING Corp., Defendant-Appellee, 128 F.3d 1466 (11th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “Thus, even though several sections of the FAA authorize particular actions by the United States district court, see 9 U.S.C. §§ 7 ,9-11, 9 “courts have not construed these references to the United States district court *1470 as intending to confer federal court jurisdiction, but…”

Vividus, LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc., 878 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “” 9 U.S.C. § 7 In this case, an arbitration panel issued a subpoena against Respondent-Ap-pellee Express Scripts, Inc.”

Hay Grp., Inc. v. E.B.S. Acquisition Corp., Pricewaterhousecoopers L.L.P., 360 F.3d 404 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “first argue that, under Section 7 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 7 , a non-party witness may be compelled to bring documents to an arbitration proceeding but may not simply be subpoenaed to produce documents.”

Life Receivables Trust v. SYNDICATE 102, LLOYD'S OF LONDON, 549 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “WESLEY, Circuit Judge: This appeal places squarely before us a question that has divided the circuits: 2 Does section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 7 , authorize arbitrators to compel pre-hearing document discovery from entities not parties to the…”

Maine Cmty. Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., 993 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 1332 (a) is satisfied in an action under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 7 , seeking enforcement of a third-party subpoena issued by arbitrators.”

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). “9 U. S. C. § 7 (arbitrators may summon witnesses to attend proceedings and seek enforcement in a district court).”

Show all 130 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.