Does a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) have jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award? This question arises when the motion to confirm under §9 or the motion to vacate under §10 does not independently present a basis for federal jurisdiction on its face. The Court must determine if the court retains jurisdiction despite the "nonjurisdictional cast" of the FAA.

Petitioner sought to vacate the arbitral award and argued that, under *Badgerow v. Walters*, the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the §9 and §10 motions neither presented federal questions nor satisfied diversity requirements. He contended that §9 and §10 applications should be treated as "new federal actions" due to the service and notice requirements of §9 and §12 of the FAA. Additionally, petitioner argued that §8 of the FAA demonstrates that Congress declined to provide a "jurisdictional anchor" for §9 and §10 motions.

Respondents sought to confirm the arbitral award and argued that the District Court retained jurisdiction because it had original jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U. S. C. §1331. They asserted that a court with the power to stay an action under §3 possesses the further power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award, citing *Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co.* Respondents maintained that this case differs from *Badgerow v. Walters* because the dispute was not