About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

88 Tul. L. Rev. 773 (2013-2014)

handle is hein.journals/tulr88 and id is 829 raw text is: A Compelling Case for Streamlining Venue of Actions To Enjoin Arbitration Jason W Burge* Lara K. Richardst As arbitration, rather than ligation in cowr4 grows as a favored forum for dripute resolution, the role of federal courts i guiding parties toward arbitration has incrased in importance Federal courts are regularly asked to intervene to compel arbitration or to enjoin arbitration from proceeding. A cicuit split has developed regardng whether federa couts have the power to compel arbitrations in districts outside their own, stemming from § 4 ofthe Federal ArbitrationActs conflicting pernissive versus mandatory venue provisions. There a hkewise conlicting opinions regarding whether a federal court can enjoin an arbitration pending in another district ThisArticle explores the disparate decisions on these issues, arguing that venue for an action to enjoin arbitration should be imited to the district where arbitration ispending m order to promote judicial efficiency to pmvent forum shopping, to avoid incorsistent rulings, and to funnel parties quickly to arbitration. I. INTRODUCTION. ................................. .....774 II. THE FAA AND THE MANDATORY AND PERMISSIVE LANGUAGEOF§4 ...................................778 III. THE THREE-WAY CIRCUIT SPLIT OVER THE PROPER VENUE FOR MOTIONS To COMPEL ARBITRATION .......... ...........781 A. The Fih CircuitApproach.. ...................782 B. The NAith CircuitApproach ..................784 C The MajolityApproach.. ......................788 IV COURTS ALSO CONFLICT ABouT WHETHER THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF § 4 OF THE FAA ARE APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS To ENJOIN ARBITRATION............. ..........793 V PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS PREVENTING DISTRICT COURTS FROM ENJOINING ARBITRATIONS OUTSIDE THEIR OWN DISTRICTS .........................................797 A. Curtails Forum Shopping and Races to the Courthouse. ..............................797 © 2014 Jason W Burge and Lara K. Richards. * Partner, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, L.L.P. The authors would like to thank Molly Wells, Lowell Dyer, Andrew Gerow, Victoria Bagot, and Kaja Stamnes for their research assistance, as well as their helpful comments and edits on earlier drafts of this Article. Special thanks to the members of the Tulane Law Review for both the opportunity to contribute this Article and for the editors' skillful edits. t Associate, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, L.L.P J.D. 2011, Tulane University School of Law. 773

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most