Clarifying the Intent of Congress: Are the Federal Arbitration Act's Venue Provisions Permissive or Mandatory - Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co.

Authors

Darynne L. O'Neal

Abstract

Some circuits have taken the position that the venue provisions are mandatory, thus limiting venue for motions to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards to the district where the award was made. Other circuits, however, have adopted the contrary position that the venue provisions are permissive, allowing such motions to be brought either in the district where the arbitration award was made or in any district that is proper under the general venue statute. This Casenote explores the split among the circuits on the nature of the FAA's venue provisions. Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co. addressed this issue and, in abrogating preceding cases, held that the venue provisions of the FAA are permissive.

Recommended Citation

Darynne L. O'Neal, Clarifying the Intent of Congress: Are the Federal Arbitration Act's Venue Provisions Permissive or Mandatory - Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., 2001 J. Disp. Resol. (2001)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2001/iss1/11