Opinion ID: 795714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 19 The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying ERISA action in this case under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It accordingly asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the Insurers' related FED.R.CIV.P. 22 interpleader action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 20 Because the district court denied Lay and Skilling's Arbitration Motion, which asked the court to stay the proceeding and compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, this court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A), (B), which provides that [a]n appeal may be taken from an order refusing a stay of any action under section 3 of this title, or an order denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed. . . .