Document: 529 U.S. 193120 S.Ct. 1331146 L.Ed.2d 171 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC., PETITIONERv.BILL HARBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY etc. No. 98-1960. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued January 10, 2000 Decided March 21, Syllabus Petitioner Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., and respondent Bill Harbert Construction Company agreed, inter alia, disputes arising from Harbert's construction a Mississippi mill for would decided by arbitration. When such dispute arose, arbitration was conducted Alabama received an award. sought vacate modify award Federal District Southern Mississippi, where contract performed; seven days later confirm Northern Alabama. The latter court refused dismiss, transfer, stay its action, concluding venue proper only there, it entered judgment Harbert. Eleventh Circuit held that, under Arbitration Act (FAA), motions confirm, vacate, awards exclusively district made, thus here limited court. Held: FAA's provisions permissive, allowing motion brought either general statute. Pp. 3-11. (a) Byrd's clearly as diversity action statute, 28 1391(a)(2), because filed performed. However, FAA provides upon party, federal "may" 9 correct, 11, If these restrictive, supplanting rather than supplementing there no action. Owing their contemporaneous enactment similar language, 10 11 best analyzed together with 9, which permits parties select confirmation absence agreement, lies made. 3-5. (b) Parsing language 9-11 does not answer question whether restrictive supporting both views. history function they were meant expand, limit, choice. enacted 1925 against backdrop considerably more statute today's. effectively civil suits defendant resided, courts did favor forum selection clauses. had obviously liberalizing effect, undiminished suggestion Congress simultaneously foreclose suit resided. That normally defendant's most convenient forum, take very powerful reason ever suggest eliminate postarbitration disputes. view confirmed agreements. Were construed restrictively, proceeding begun selected abeyance while objecting party returned unsuccessful, then return previously confirming originally sought. Nothing could at odds policy rapid unobstructed enforcement agreements desired flexibility choosing site. A interpretation also place 3-which referable pending arbitration-and needless tension, power 3 has ensuing award, Marine Transit Corp v. Dreyfus, 284 263, 275-276. create anomalous results aftermath arbitrations abroad. Against this reasoning, specific function, citations cases construing special see e.g., Fourco Glass Co. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 222, 227-228, beside point. Their authority statutes but analysis must question. 5-11. 169 F.3d 693, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO OFAPPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Souter, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Justice Souter 1 case raises issue Act, U.S.C. 9-11, permitting We hold permissive. 2 * agreed build wood chip Brookhaven, Mississippi. One terms "[a]ll claims between Contractor Owner out relating Contract, breach thereof, shall accordance Industry Rules American Association currently effect unless mutually agree otherwise." App. 52. agreement went on provide "[t]he rendered arbitrator arbitrators final, judgement applicable law having jurisdiction thereof," ibid.; arbitrate "shall specifically enforceable project located, governed, id., 60; 694 (CA11 1999). After invoked filing Atlanta office Association, November 1997 Birmingham, next month, panel issued Ibid. 4 In 1998, complaint seeking moved denied motion, Alabama, entering $274,256.90 plus interest costs. 5 Appeals affirmed. It itself bound pre-1981 Fifth precedent, cf. Bonner Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 1981), Act's provisions, F.3d, 694; Naples Prepakt Concrete Co., 490 182, 184 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 843 (1974). been rule so 6 granted certiorari, 527 1066 (1999), resolve split among Courts over permissive mandatory character provisions. Compare re VMS Securities Litigation, 21 139, 144-145 (CA7 1994) (9 permissive); Smiga Dean Witter Reynolds, 766 698, 706 (CA2 1985), 475 1067 (1986) Sutter Corp. P & Indus., 125 914, 918-920 (CA5 1997) Inc. 179 861, 869-870 (CA10 1999) Apex Plumbing Supply, Supply 142 188, 192 (CA4 1998) Nordin Nutri/System, 897 339, 344 (CA8 1990) permissive), Central Valley Typographical Union 46 McClatchy Newspapers, 762 741, 744 (CA9 1985) (10 mandatory); Island Creek Coal Sales Gainesville, 729 1046, 1049-1050 (CA6 1984) Sunshine Beauty Supplies, Court, Dist. Cal., 872 310, 312 1989) ex rel. Chicago Bridge Iron Ets-Hokin 397 935, 939 1968) mandatory). reverse. II 7 Section governs awards: 8 "If have pursuant arbitration, specify court, time within one year after apply specified thereupon grant vacated, modified, corrected prescribed sections title. parties, application made." 10(a), governing awards, "the wherein [arbitration] make vacating [in five enumerated situations]." And modification correction, 12 modifying correcting arbitration." 13 precise raised properly laid southern provides, things, "a judicial substantial part events omissions giving rise claim occurred, property situated." 1391(a)(2). supplement, do supplant, provision, principles deference first filing, should considered staying hand. Cf. Kerotest Mfg. C-O-Two Fire Equipment 342 180, 185 (1952); Landis North 299 248, 254 (1936); 5A Wright A. Miller, Practice Procedure 1360 (1990). But if correctly proceeded litigation confirm. Although directly implicated since northern reading three together, owing similarity pertinent language. 14 Enlightenment will come merely parsing less clear contends. read each section, argues, mere use necessarily conclusive congressional intent discretionary authority. Rodgers, 461 677, (1983) ("The word 'may,' when used usually implies some degree discretion[, but] [t]his common-sense principle statutory - can defeated indications legislative contrary obvious inferences structure purpose statute" (footnote omitted)); Citizens Nat. Bank Bougas, 434 35, 38 (1977). Certainly warning flag up instance. While points parts indication sense, 12, calls attention clue even elsewhere Act. See ("A aggrieved alleged failure, neglect, refusal another written petition which, save title 1"). Each point, neither point conclusive. comparing phrases. 15 Statutory better lesson, though, following practical consequences position. 1925, appeared current today. At time, 112(a) (1926 ed.).2 statute's all pronounced due courts' inhospitality clauses, Bremen Zapata Off-Shore 407 1, 9-10 (1972). Hence, expressly permitted conducted, probably prove vain. suggestion, textual otherwise, Such consequence inexplicable passing strange 75 years later. residence, 16 virtue nonrestrictive provision authorizes binding selecting Since coexist needs ask how work obtained (but outside arbitration) need responding objected. begin separate withstood attack, move back Harbert, naturally, far endorsing anything sort contends clause later-filed 10. contention boils down denying logic own regime we described follow adopting position, simply cannot tagged taste bizarre. Nothing, indeed, "statutory agreements," Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. 460 23 (1983), site location well residence connection issue, many relation whatsoever dispute. willing inconvenient say, convenience arbitrators, get knowledge experience, compromise, might pick future proceedings there. Flexibility choices, then, inhibited mandating same someone 17 resolved disrupting existing precedent "referable writing" trial until agreement." 3. litigation, subsequent modify, set aside original (unless happened chosen agreement). have, however, further 275-276 (1932) ("We conceive open irregularity, fraud, ultra vires defect"). concedes acknowledging retains aelose venue.' " Brief Respondent 29. concession saving our still fails explain why wanted allow liberally stages actions antedating different preceded parties. 18 Finally, Sections 204, 207, 302 liberal choice 1958 Convention Recognition Enforcement Foreign Arbitral Awards 1975 Inter-American International Commercial Arbitration.3 204 302. restrict preclude foreign covered convention. I. MacNeil, R. Speidel T. Stipanowich, Law 44.9.1.8 (1995) (discussing difficulties enforcing nonsignatory states). barred lack jurisdiction, restrictions venue, anomalies like avoided be. True, "[t]here been, perhaps are, occasional gaps laws, [but] intend gaps, away hand what given way jurisdictional other. Thus, reasonable prefer avoids leaving gap." Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. Kockum Industries, 406 706, 710, n. (1972); Scherk Alberto-Culver 417 506, 516-517 (1974) (noting "[a] contractual specifying advance litigated applied almost indispensable precondition achievement orderliness predictability essential international business transaction," parochial country enforce frustrate purposes, invite unseemly destructive jockeying secure tactical advantages"). 19 Attention confirms day endure through treating them permitting, limiting, As addressing concerned, found, example, patent cases, 227-228 (1957); Stonite Melvin Lloyd 315 561, 565-566 (1942), sake protecting national banks dealing them, U.S., 44, geographic reach Title VII, evidenced extraterritorial mechanisms EEOC Arabian Oil 499 244, 256 (1991). deemed restrictive; show With holding entitled prevail. 20 reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. NOTES: version referred code law," 28. 43 Stat. 883. "[E]xcept provided 113 118 title, person process whereof he inhabitant; founded fact citizens plaintiff defendant." ed.). resided views personal often difficult sue his residence. Shoe 326 316 (1945) (requiring minimum contacts judgment). "in respect controversy brought, division embraces designated 207 states "any chapter award." applies Convention. added 1970; 1990.

Category: 8