News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
Docket number: 25-83
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argument: March 30, 2026
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 30, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The questions presented: "Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: Adrian Jules
      • Legal counsel: Adam G. Unikowsky
    • Respondent: Andre Balazs Properties
      • Legal counsel: Anne Margaret Voigts

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]

    “

    Adrian Jules worked at the Chateau Marmont hotel in Los Angeles until he was fired in March 2020. In December 2020, he sued multiple individuals and affiliated corporate entities in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging discrimination and other claims under both federal and state law. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as diversity jurisdiction. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Jules signed with Chateau Marmont, which was not initially named as a party. The district court stayed the litigation pending arbitration but did not formally compel arbitration, as the agreement required arbitration to occur in California, outside that court’s district. Jules proceeded to arbitrate his claims against Chateau alone. The arbitrator ultimately ruled against him on all claims and sanctioned him and his attorney for misconduct during the arbitration. After the award, Jules returned to the district court, seeking to vacate it, while Chateau and other defendants sought to confirm it—even though some of them were not parties to the arbitration proceeding. Jules argued that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow v. Walters, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm the award because the post-arbitration petitions, on their face, did not establish federal jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the award, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that because the court had jurisdiction over the original, stayed lawsuit, it retained jurisdiction over subsequent applications to confirm or vacate the arbitration award. That ruling deepened a split among the courts of appeals, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[5]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "25-83 JULES V. ANDRE BALAZS PROPERTIES QP", December 5, 2025
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 25-83," accessed February 10, 2026
    3. ↑ Oyez, "Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties," accessed February 10, 2026
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jules_v._Andre_Balazs_Properties&oldid=11053764"