Whether a litigant's statement accepting 'venue' in a district court can judicially estop that litigant from later seeking to dismiss a new action in that same district court based on enforcement of a contractual 'forum' selection clause?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents two important federal questions arising from an arbitration award confirmed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and then affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Answering the first question would resolve a circuit split concerning the application of judicial estoppel. Answering the second question will clarify currently unsettled law as to the grounds upon which reviewing courts may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 10(a)(4), where the award was without any support in the language of the contract or the intention of the parties, was in manifest disregard of the law, and lacked any judicial precedent whatsoever. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a litigant’s statement accepting “venue” in a district court, never addressed or ruled upon by that court, can judicially estop that litigant from later seeking to dismiss a new action in that same district court based on enforcement of a contractual “forum” selection clause? 2. Does the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C Section 10, allow federal courts to overturn an arbitration decision based not only on the absence of contractual support for the decision, but also on “manifest disregard” of the law, an issue this Court left open in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l, 559 U.S. 662, 672 n.3, and if so, does an attorneys’ fee award against a party who prevailed on all contract claims, based solely on that party having unsuccessfully requested a fee award, evidence manifest disregard and thereby exceed an arbitrator’s powers under 9 U.S.C. Section 10(a) so as to compel reversal?