Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 277

529US1

Unit: $U37

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

202

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

ance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U. S. C. § 3.
If
an arbitration were then held outside the district of that liti-
gation, under a restrictive reading of §§ 9–11 a subsequent
proceeding to conﬁrm, modify, or set aside the arbitration
award could not be brought in the district of the original
litigation (unless that also happened to be the chosen venue
in a forum selection agreement). We have, however, pre-
viously held that the court with the power to stay the action
under § 3 has the further power to conﬁrm any ensuing arbi-
tration award. Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U. S.
263, 275–276 (1932) (“We do not conceive it to be open to
question that, where the court has authority under the
statute . . . to make an order for arbitration, the court also
has authority to conﬁrm the award or to set it aside for irreg-
ularity, fraud, ultra vires or other defect”). Harbert in ef-
fect concedes this point, acknowledging that “the court en-
tering a stay order under § 3 retains jurisdiction over the
proceeding and does not ‘lose venue.’ ” Brief for Respond-
ent 29. But that concession saving our precedent still fails
to explain why Congress would have wanted to allow venue
liberally where motions to conﬁrm, vacate, or modify were
brought as subsequent stages of actions antedating the arbi-
tration, but would have wanted a different rule when arbi-
tration was not preceded by a suit between the parties.

Finally, Harbert’s interpretation would create anomalous
results in the aftermath of arbitrations held abroad. Sec-
tions 204, 207, and 302 of the FAA together provide for
liberal choice of venue for actions to conﬁrm awards subject
to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the 1975 Inter-American
Convention on International Commercial Arbitration.3
9

3 Section 204 provides for venue in actions under the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards “in any such
court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding
with respect to the controversy . . . could be brought, or in such court
for the district and division which embraces the place designated in the
agreement as the place of arbitration.” Section 207 states that “any party