If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made. Notice of the application shall be served upon the adverse party, and thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of such party as though he had appeared generally in the proceeding. If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident, then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Anson Stamping Co. Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 579 (W.D. Ky. 2006).
· cites it 29× “1 Anson has tendered, along with its reply brief, a proposed order and judgment that construes its motion to amend as being a request to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 . General Electric has filed an opposition to…”
United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 9× “, where a controversy has been arbitrated pursuant to a valid arbitration provision and the arbitrator has made an award, the parties may seek to confirm, see 9 U.S.C. § 9 , or to vacate, see 9 U.S.C.”
Dealer Comput. Servs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford, 623 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 18× “A final award deciding the merits of the dealers' breach of contract claims would clearly be subject to confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 . [1] But the subject class determination *352 award is clearly not final.”
Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Serv., 966 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 2020).
· cites it 5× “9 U.S.C. § 9 . Teamsters Local Union No. 177 (“Local 177” or the “Union”) sought confirmation of an arbitration award in its favor (the “Award”) per § 9, which provides that a district court “must grant” a confirmation order for an award upon application where the award has not…”
Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2001).
· cites it 5× “Less than one year later, on January 23, 2001, the plaintiffs commenced this action by filing an Application by Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award pursuant to Title 9 U.S.C. § 9 . On June 20, 2001, the court *17 issued a show-cause order instructing the plaintiffs to provide…”
Weinar, M. v. Lex, W., 176 A.3d 907 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 7× “at *3, citing FAA § 9, 9 U.S.C. § 9 (stating that any party .may apply for an order confirming an arbitration award “at any time within one year after the award is made”).”
ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Alstom Power dealt with an attempt to dismiss a petition to confirm an arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 9 , not a petition to compel arbitration brought under 9 U.”
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. De C.V., 92 F.4th 815 (9th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 8× “The district court correctly recognized that “[t]he provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 9 ,” which govern motions to confirm an arbitral award, “do not in themselves confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal district court.”
Gen. Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 8× “NELSON, Circuit Judge: In this expedited appeal, General Atomic Company (“GAC”) seeks review of the district court’s dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of GAC’s application for confirmation of an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 . We affirm. “It is a…”
Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D. Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 10× “Ryan (“Ryan”) move this Court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 10 for an order confirming in part and vacating in part an arbitration award issued on October 10, 2003.”
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.