Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 98-1960, Cortez Byrd Chips Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Company will be announced by Justice Souter.
Argument of Justice Souter
Mr. Souter: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The petitioner Cortez Byrd Chips Incorporated and the respondent Bill Harbert Construction Company agreed that any disputes arising from Harbert’s Construction of a Mississippi mill for Cortez Byrd would be decided by arbitration.
After a dispute arose, arbitration was conducted in Alabama and Harbert received an award.
Cortez Byrd sought to vacate and modify the award in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, where the contract was performed.
Seven days later, Harbert sought to confirm the award in the Northern District of Alabama.
The Alabama Court refused to dismiss transfer or stay its action, concluding that venue was proper only there, and it entered judgment for Harbert.
The Eleventh Circuit held that under the Federal Arbitration Act venue for motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards was exclusively in the district where the arbitration award was made, in this case, Alabama.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk of Court today, we reverse.
The Federal Arbitration Act’s venue provisions are permissive, allowing a motion to confirm, vacate or modify to be brought either in the district where the award was made or in any district proper under the general venue statute.
And our opinion is unanimous.
