Your argument next in case 2583, Jules v. Andre Belaz.

Mr. Unikowski.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, in Badgerow v. Walters, this Court held

that federal courts lack jurisdiction over applications under Section 9 and 10 of the Federal

Arbitration Act unless an independent jurisdictional basis appears on the face of the application.

In this case, the Court should hold that Badgerow's rule applies to all Section 9 and 10 applications,

regardless of whether a pre-existing suit is on file.

Nothing in the FAA distinguishes between those Section 9 and 10 applications that are associated with a pre-existing

suit and those that are not.

Moreover, Section 8 of the FAA contains explicit jurisdictional anchor language that sections

9 and 10 lack.

The Court should infer that this textual disparity is intentional, much as the Court relied

on a similar inference in Badgerald.

The Court should resolve this case based on the text of the FAA rather than based on Section 1367's

related to standard. But if the Court reaches that issue, it should hold that there is no common

nucleus of operative fact between the underlying suit and the Section 9 and 10 applications,

which concern an arbitration award that did not exist at the time of the original federal

suit.

As Badrow put it, the underlying dispute is not now at issue.

In Kocan, this Court held that a settlement dispute is insufficiently related to the underlying

dispute to warrant the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction, and the Court should rely on similar

reasoning here in rejecting jurisdiction.

...