Whether the FAA's venue provision can be abused to permit forum shopping for post-arbitration proceedings, contrary to the parties' agreement

QUESTION PRESENTED Where Respondent Sprint Corporation filed a motion for arbitration in Hawaii state court pursuant to the Hawaii arbitration statute, and the Hawaii State judge granted the motion pursuant to the Hawaii arbitration statute and stayed the Hawaii state case pending arbitration, and the Hawaii arbitration statute provided that all post-arbitration proceedings be filed in the Hawaii state case, did the Fifth Circuit Court err in affirming the decision of the Texas federal District Court that 1) permitted post-arbitration proceedings to proceed in Texas federal court pursuant to the venue provision of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 USC 9, because the arbitration award was issued in Texas, instead of Hawaii state court, and 2) applied Fifth Circuit precedent which was favorable to Appellee in post-arbitration proceedings instead of applying Hawaii precedent and procedures which were unfavorable to Appellee in post-arbitration proceedings? Put another way, should the venue provision of the FAA, 9 USC 9, be allowed to be abused by the prevailing party in an arbitration to permit forum shopping for post-arbitration proceedings in a jurisdiction not agreed to by the parties thereby avoiding unfavorable post-arbitration law in the jurisdiction in which the parties had previously agreed to litigate post-arbitration proceedings? The Fifth Circuit’s Opinion in this case is in direct conflict with the principles set forth by this i Court in Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989), relating to enforcement of arbitration proceedings pursuant to the agreement of the parties rather than pursuant to the prevailing party's decision to use the FAA, contrary to the agreement of the parties. ii