It is well-settled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq., does not, by itself, confer a federal court with jurisdiction to hear a case. Instead, there must be an “independent jurisdictional basis” for the court to accept a case filed under the FAA. Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008). Thus, for a party to bring an action under the FAA in federal court, the party must first establish the existence of either (1) federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or (2) diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332). In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that the text of 9 U.S.C. § 4 (the provision allowing a party to petition the court for a motion to compel arbitration), instructs the courts to “look through” the petition to the “underlying substantive controversy” between the parties to determine whether jurisdiction exists for the court to consider the petition. That is, if the underlying dispute raises a federal question or if the parties to the matter are diverse, then the court has jurisdiction to rule on the petition to compel arbitration—a seemingly straightforward and reasonable approach.
