A federal court must of course have subject matter jurisdiction
to entertain an application to confirm or enforce an arbitration
award. Fortunately, that jurisdiction is in general provided by
statute when it comes to arbitral awards that are subject to the
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards (the "New York Convention") and Ch. 2 of the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). See FAA § 203, 9
U.S.C. § 203. However, several federal courts have determined
that they lack subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FAA §
203 to confirm or enforce an "interim" international
arbitration award. But just what qualifies as "interim"
is not always clear.
In Al Raha Grp. for Tech. Servs. v. PKL Servs., Inc.,
No. 1:18-cv-04194, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156249 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 6,
2019), the court held that it did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to enforce an arbitral award of injunctive
"interim measures," which had been issued with the intent
to