Opinion ID: 782349
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jurisdiction to Compel Arbitration

Text: 39 Inland Bulk argues, however, that even if the contract had an arbitration provision, the district court (and this court) would not be able to order the parties to arbitrate in France, the location specified in the arbitration provision. At oral argument, Cummins did not contest this point. 9 40 Inland Bulk is correct; the Federal Arbitration Act prevents federal courts from compelling arbitration outside of their own district. See 9 U.S.C. § 4 (stating that the arbitration must take place within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed); see also Mgmt. Recruiters Int'l, Inc. v. Bloor, 129 F.3d 851, 854 (6th Cir.1997) (noting that where the parties have agreed to arbitrate in a particular forum, only a district court in that forum has jurisdiction to compel arbitration pursuant to Section 4). The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does allow federal courts to order arbitration abroad in international commercial disputes in some circumstances. See 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The Convention, however, is clearly inapplicable here, because all the parties are United States citizens, and the contract involved exclusively domestic property and domestic performance. See 9 U.S.C. § 202 (An agreement or award arising out of such a [commercial legal] relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States shall be deemed not to fall under the Convention unless that relationship involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.). Thus, the district judge correctly refused to compel arbitration.