The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that an arbitration clause in the contract required the claims be arbitrated. Court rejected plaintiffs argument that defendant had waived its right to object to venue based on making two motions to extend time.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was invalid because it was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant knew certain representations to be false.
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the arbitration panel was justified in refusing to postpone an evidentiary hearing after having postponed it on two prior occasions. Court further found that an incorrect application of a state’s statute of limitations did not rise to the level of manifest disregard of the law.
Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co. Ltd. v. Tiancheng International Inc. USA, No. 5:17-CV-021127-PA-SHK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018)
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award issued in a contract dispute, finding that respondent failed to satisfy its burden to establish a defense under the New York Convention. Court stated that the review of foreign awards is limited and enforcement could only be refused if the court found one of the seven grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. Court found that allegations of forgery of the underlying contract were matters to be exclusively determined by the arbitrator, and even if accepted as true, fall short of establishing a defense under the New York Convention.
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims that had previously been arbitrated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court rejected defendant’s argument that a valid agreement to arbitrate divests the court of jurisdiction to hear claims subject to the agreement. Although defendant’s did not make a motion to compel arbitration, court further found that a motion to compel arbitration could not have been brought under FRCP 12(b)(1).