Originally from Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation

PAGE PREVIEW

The jurisdiction/venue of the federal U.S. District Courts over actions and proceedings falling under the 1958 Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, best known as the New York Convention, seems—based on the framework of Federal Arbitration Act Chapter 2 (9 U.S. Code §§ 201-208; available at https://bit.ly/43h4buX)—arguably is positioned to be nimbler than their jurisdiction/venue over actions and proceedings relating to U.S. domestic arbitrations, which are subject to FAA Chapter 1 (Id. at §§ 1-16, at the same link).

U.S. courts have construed “falling under the Convention” in FAA § 203 (Jurisdiction; amount in controversy) as relating to the Convention. See Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 42 F.4th 1131, 1133 (9th Cir. 2022) (“We join our sister circuits in holding that (1) if the underlying arbitration agreement or award falls under the Convention, and (2) the action or proceeding relates to that agreement or award, then the federal district court has jurisdiction over the action or proceeding.”) See also, Stemcor USA Inc. v. CIA Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, 927 F.3d 906, 909 (5th Cir. 2019); Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharms. Inc., 631 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011); Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2002).