## Facts

- Qwest Communications Corporation and Broadband Utility Resources, L.P. (BUR) entered a transaction under which BUR obtained an indefeasible right of use in portions of Qwest’s telecommunications cable routes.
- The parties executed an IRU Agreement on June 28, 2001; BUR made an initial payment, and Hamid Ansari pledged personal stock as collateral for the balance.
- The IRU Agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring that any dispute be arbitrated in Washington, D.C., under American Arbitration Association commercial rules.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asserting claims arising from the parties’ relationship.
- Qwest moved to compel arbitration but asked the Colorado federal court to compel arbitration in Colorado, not Washington, D.C.

## Issues

1. Whether FAA § 4 prohibits a federal district court from compelling arbitration outside its district when the contract selects an out-of-district arbitral forum.
2. Whether a district court may compel arbitration within its own district when the parties’ agreement requires arbitration in a different forum.
3. Whether filing suit in the forum district constitutes waiver of the contractual right to arbitrate in the selected forum.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Qwest’s motion to compel arbitration.
- The court held that FAA § 4 does not permit a district court to compel arbitration outside its district.
- Because the contract required arbitration in Washington, D.C., the District of Colorado could not compel arbitration there and could not compel arbitration in Colorado without contradicting the agreement.
- The court rejected arguments that FAA policy concerns, practical inconvenience, or asserted personal-jurisdiction obstacles justified disregarding § 4’s territorial limitation or the contract’s forum term.
- The court also rejected Qwest’s waiver argument based on plaintiffs’ filing suit in Colorado.

## Legal Principles

- Under FAA § 4, a court may order arbitration only “in the manner provided for in [the] agreement,” and the arbitration hearing and proceedings must be within the district where the petition to compel is filed.
- A federal district court lacks statutory authority under § 4 to compel arbitration in another district.
- When an arbitration agreement designates a specific forum outside the petitioning court’s district, the court cannot compel arbitration in the designated forum; and if compelling arbitration locally would conflict with the agreement’s forum term, the motion to compel must be denied.
- The FAA’s pro-arbitration policy does not authorize courts to override § 4’s territorial constraint or to alter a contract’s arbitral forum selection.
- A party’s initiation of litigation in a district does not, without a clear and unequivocal relinquishment, waive the right to enforce an arbitration clause’s specified arbitral locale.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that FAA § 4 limits a district court to compelling arbitration only within its own district and only in a manner consistent with the parties’ agreement; where the contract required arbitration in Washington, D.C., the District of Colorado could not compel arbitration there or substitute Colorado as the arbitral forum, so denial of the motion to compel was affirmed.


Ansari v. Qwest Commc’ns Corp., 414 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2005)