Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 271.0

529US1

Unit: $U37

[09-26-01 08:37:34] PAGES PGT: OPIN

196

CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. v. BILL HARBERT
CONSTR. CO.
Opinion of the Court

in Birmingham, Alabama. The next month, the arbitration
panel issued an award in favor of Harbert.

Ibid.

In January 1998, Cortez Byrd ﬁled a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi seeking to vacate or modify the arbitration
award, which Harbert then sought to conﬁrm by ﬁling this
action seven days later in the Northern District of Alabama.
When Cortez Byrd moved to dismiss, transfer, or stay the
Alabama action, the Alabama District Court denied the mo-
tion, concluding that venue was proper only in the Northern
District of Alabama, and entering judgment for Harbert for
$274,256.90 plus interest and costs.

Ibid.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit afﬁrmed.
It held itself bound by pre-1981 Fifth Circuit precedent,
cf. Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (CA11 1981), to
the effect that under the Act’s venue provisions, 9 U. S. C.
§§ 9–11, venue for motions to conﬁrm, vacate, or modify
awards was exclusively in the district in which the arbitra-
tion award was made. 169 F. 3d, at 694; Naples v. Prepakt
Concrete Co., 490 F. 2d 182, 184 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S.
843 (1974). The arbitration here having been held in Bir-
mingham, the rule as so construed limited venue to the
Northern District of Alabama.

We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1062 (1999), to resolve a
split among the Courts of Appeals over the permissive or
mandatory character of the FAA’s venue provisions. Com-
pare In re VMS Securities Litigation, 21 F. 3d 139, 144–145
(CA7 1994) (§§ 9 and 10 permissive); Smiga v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 766 F. 2d 698, 706 (CA2 1985), cert. denied,
475 U. S. 1067 (1986) (§ 9 permissive); Sutter Corp. v. P & P
Indus., Inc., 125 F. 3d 914, 918–920 (CA5 1997) (§§ 9 and 10
permissive); P & P Indus., Inc. v. Sutter Corp., 179 F. 3d
861, 869–870 (CA10 1999) (§§ 9 and 10 permissive); Apex
Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U. S. Supply Co., 142 F. 3d 188, 192
(CA4 1998) (§ 9 permissive); Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc.,
897 F. 2d 339, 344 (CA8 1990) (§ 9 permissive), with Central