194
Syllabus
guage supporting both views. However, the history and function of the provisions confirm that they were meant to expand, not limit, venue choice. The FAA was enacted in 1925 against the backdrop of a considerably more restrictive general venue statute than today's. The 1925 general venue statute effectively limited civil suits to the district where the defendant resided, and courts did not favor forum selection clauses. The FAA's venue provisions had an obviously liberalizing effect, undiminished by any suggestion that Congress meant simultaneously to foreclose a suit where the defendant resided. That is normally a defendant's most convenient forum, and it would take a very powerful reason ever to suggest that Congress meant to eliminate such a venue for postarbitration disputes. This view is confirmed by the obviously liberalizing § 9, which permits forum selection agreements. Were §§ 10 and 11 construed restrictively, a proceeding to confirm an award begun in a selected forum would be held in abeyance while an objecting party returned to the district of arbitration to modify or vacate the award. Were that action unsuccessful, the parties would then return to the previously selected forum for the confirming order originally sought. Nothing could be more clearly at odds with the FAA's policy of rapid and unobstructed enforcement of arbitration agreements or with the desired flexibility of parties in choosing an arbitration site. A restrictive interpretation would also place § 3—which permits a court to stay a proceeding referable to arbitration pending such arbitration—and §§ 9-11 in needless tension, for a court with the power to stay an action under § 3 also has the power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award, Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U. S. 263, 275-276. Harbert's interpretation would also create anomalous results in the aftermath of arbitrations held abroad. Against this reasoning, specific to the FAA's history and function, Harbert's citations to cases construing other special venue provisions as restrictive, see, e. g., Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227-228, are beside the point. Their authority is not that special venue statutes are restrictive, but that analysis of special venue provisions must be specific to the statute in question. Pp. 198-204.
169 F. 3d 693, reversed and remanded.
Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Daniel H. Bromberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were John L. Maxey II and John F. Hawkins.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007