## Facts

- Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., a Mississippi company, hired Bill Harbert Construction Co. to install a chip mill in Mississippi under a contract requiring arbitration of disputes.
- A payment dispute arose after installation when Harbert sought an upward adjustment; Cortez Byrd refused, citing noncompliance with contractual procedures for additional compensation.
- Harbert initiated arbitration through the American Arbitration Association; the arbitration occurred in Alabama, and Harbert obtained an award.
- Cortez Byrd filed first in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to vacate or modify the award.
- Seven days later, Harbert filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to confirm the award.
- The Alabama court held venue proper only in Alabama, refused to dismiss/transfer/stay, and confirmed the award; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that FAA venue for confirmation/vacatur/modification was exclusive to the district where the award was made.

## Issues

1. Whether the venue provisions in 9 U.S.C. §§ 9–11 require motions to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award to be brought exclusively in the district where the award was made.
2. Whether §§ 9–11 instead permit such motions either in the district where the award was made or in any district otherwise proper under the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that FAA §§ 9–11 venue provisions are permissive, not exclusive.
- A motion to confirm, vacate, or modify may be filed either in the district where the award was made or in any district proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
- Because Mississippi was a proper venue under the general venue statute, Cortez Byrd’s earlier-filed Mississippi action was not barred by the FAA’s venue language.

## Legal Principles

- FAA §§ 9–11 supplement, rather than supplant, the general federal venue statute; they provide additional permissible venues and do not preclude otherwise proper venues under § 1391.
- The statutory wording authorizing the court “in and for the district wherein the award was made” to act uses permissive language (“may”) and does not expressly impose exclusivity.
- The historical setting of the FAA’s enactment supports reading §§ 9–11 as expanding available venues in a period when general federal venue rules were more restrictive.
- Venue analysis for post-award FAA motions requires reading §§ 9–11 consistently with each other and alongside generally applicable venue rules.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted the FAA’s post-award venue provisions to allow proceedings to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award either where the award was made or in any federal district where venue is proper under the general venue statute, rejecting the view that the FAA confines venue exclusively to the arbitration forum.


Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193 (2000)