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.
Newly Released Decisions
ADT, L.L.C. v. Richmond, No. 21-10023 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2021)
Court vacated lower court’s dismissal for want of diversity jurisdiction, holding that between the parties there was a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court remanded the case for the district court to determine if a third-party who might defeat diversity jurisdiction should be joined as indispensable.
FMC Corporation v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG, No. 21-CV-00487 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 11, 2021)
Court granted motion to dismiss ruling in a patent dispute case. Court held that the arbitration clause in the parties’ collaboration agreement clearly required the parties to submit their claims to binding arbitration.
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 17-CV-02332-APM (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021)
Court granted motion to enter judgment in favor of petitioners for accrued sanctions. Court found that by not answering petitioners’ interrogatories within 14 days, respondent had failed to fulfill the conditions that would allow them to avoid imposition of at least some of the accrued sanctions.
Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. v. Kartha Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 21-CV-00129-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2021)
Court granted motion to amend protective order to aid in a related Swiss arbitration. Court found that allowing the Swiss arbitration counsel to access and use discovery that had been exchanged by the parties in U.S. litigation would reduce costs for all involved.
Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, No. 20-3451 (2nd Cir. Nov. 8, 2021)
Court affirmed lower court’s confirmation of arbitration award dismissing respondent-appellant’s claims as untimely. Court found that limitations defenses were arbitrable under the parties’ arbitration agreement because the presumption of arbitrability was not rebutted by any express language in the contract. Court also upheld an anti-filing injunction given petitioner-appellees history of vexatious and duplicative litigation.