FAA Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Federal Arbitration Act confers original jurisdiction on the federal district courts over actions falling under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards for two types of claims: (1) an action to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 206, and (2) an action to confirm an arbitral award under § 207. The plaintiffs in URS Corp. v. Lebanese Co. for Devel. & Reconstr. of Beirut Central Dist., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72726 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2007), argued that ‛an action compelling arbitration is the same as an action enjoining arbitration“ and thus the District Court necessarily had jurisdiction to (i) declare whether an agreement to arbitrate existed (a judicial determination in domestic arbitrations under First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995)), and (ii) enjoin an arbitration if it found that no such agreement existed. District Judge Sue L. Robinson disagreed, holding that the FAA did not confer subject matter jurisdiction to do anything other than compel arbitration or confirm an award, as the words of the statutes provide.

Injunctive Power over Foreign Arbitrations. The plaintiffs in URS sought an injunction for the not unreasonable reason that the defendant had commenced the arbitration not only against its contractual counterparty but also against the corporate parent that acquired it after the contract had been executed and which had not agreed to arbitrate anything. The arbitration had been commenced by a Lebanese entity against the two U.S. entities. The contract provided that the arbitration was to be governed by the laws of Lebanon and to be arbitrated in English in Paris, pursuant to ICC Rules. Judge Robinson held that, on these facts, the U.S. courts were not vested with primary jurisdiction over the arbitration and, therefore, lacked power to enjoin the foreign arbitral proceeding.