Jurisdiction Issues

Eleventh Circuit Finds Removal Jurisdiction Is Included Within Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

May 21, 2019 by Benjamin Stearns

In 2001, Del Monte International GmbH and Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. entered into an agreement for the production, packaging, and sale of MD-2 pineapples, a variety of pineapple that Del Monte had developed and which subsequently became the most popular pineapple in the world. The contract included an agreement to arbitrate as well as an agreement that, upon termination of the contract, INPROTSA would either destroy or return its stock of pineapples to Del Monte. However, when the agreement expired in 2013, INPROTSA sold the MD-2 pineapples to third parties rather than destroy or return them to Del Monte.

Del Monte initiated arbitration and was ultimately awarded approximately $26 million and an injunction against INPROTSA’s continued sale of the MD-2 pineapple. INPROTSA filed a petition to vacate the award in Florida state court. Del Monte removed the case to federal court and filed a combined motion to dismiss the petition to vacate and cross-petition to confirm the award. After some “procedural detours,” the district court granted Del Monte’s cross-petition to confirm the award.

INPROTSA appealed, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, among other issues. INPROTSA argued that there are only two causes of action that may be brought under 9 U.S.C. § 203, the jurisdictional provision of the statute implementing the Convention: (1) an action to compel arbitration; and (2) an action to confirm an arbitral award. According to INPROTSA, because a petition to vacate an arbitral award is not one of the recognized causes of action, the federal court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

INPROTSA conceded that the district court had removal jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 205, but argued that the scope of the court’s removal jurisdiction was not coterminous with that of its subject-matter jurisdiction. Effectively, INPROTSA argued that federal courts should be required to remand any case removed to federal court under § 205 that did not also have a federal jurisdictional basis under § 203.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed on all counts. First, the court held that the Convention does not provide an “exhaustive list of actions and proceedings falling under the Convention” such that the court must inquire whether the action is one of the two types recited above. Rather, the relevant inquiry for the court is whether the action or proceeding “falls under the convention.” The court stated that an action or proceeding falls under the Convention for purposes of § 203 when the action “sufficiently relate[s] to an agreement or award subject to the Convention, such that the agreement or award could conceivably affect the outcome of the case.”

Second, although the court agreed with INPROTSA that removal jurisdiction was not necessarily coterminous with subject-matter jurisdiction, the court nevertheless determined that Congress intended to provide a federal forum for resolving issues implicating the Convention. The court reasoned that it would “make little sense for Congress to specifically authorize removal of cases over which the federal courts would lack subject-matter jurisdiction. … It makes far more sense to conclude Congress intended § 203 to be read consistently with § 205 as conferring subject-matter jurisdiction over actions or proceedings sufficiently related to agreements or awards subject to the Convention.”

Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte Int’l GmbH, 921 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2019).

Court Finds Jurisdiction Over Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award in Dispute Between Liquidator and Foreign Reinsurer

April 29, 2019 by Benjamin Stearns

In the wake of the liquidation of Legion Indemnity Co., the Illinois Director of Insurance, as liquidator of Legion, and Catalina Holdings arbitrated claims originating under reinsurance agreements between Legion and a predecessor of Catalina. After the arbitrators ruled in favor of Catalina, Catalina filed a petition to confirm the award with the Northern District of Illinois. The Director moved to dismiss.

The court found that it had jurisdiction over the petition under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The arbitration agreement arose out of a dispute over reinsurance contracts, which are generally considered “commercial” under 9 U.S.C. § 2, and the contracts arose out of a relationship between a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United Kingdom. Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 202, all arbitral awards fall under the Convention unless they arise out of “a relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States.”

The court ruled against the Director’s argument that the Convention is reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act because the Convention did not “invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by [the] State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance.” Finally, the court found that Burford abstention would be inappropriate in this case. The Director argued, pursuant to Burford, that the court should “abstain from the exercise of federal review that would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.” There are two “essential elements” to this type of Burford abstention: The state must offer a forum where these claims may be litigated, and that forum must “stand in a special relationship of technical oversight or concentrated review to the evaluation of those claims.” The requisite elements were not present in this case and, as a result, the court refused to abstain.

Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Hammer, No. 1:18-cv-05642 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2019).

Discovery Under Section 1782 Denied Based on Finding That Chinese Arbitration Organization Was Not a “Foreign or International Tribunal”

April 8, 2019 by Benjamin Stearns

Section 1782(a) permits a person to seek a court order for the production of documents for use “in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. …” To obtain discovery under the statute, the petitioner must meet three requirements: (1) the person from whom discovery is sought must reside or be found in the district where the application was made; (2) the discovery must be for use in a foreign proceeding before a foreign or international tribunal; and (3) the applicant must be either a foreign tribunal or an interested person.

Here, the court relied on precedent in the Second Circuit holding that when Congress enacted section 1782, “it intended to cover governmental or intergovernmental arbitral tribunals and conventional courts and other state-sponsored adjudicatory bodies,” but did not intend to cover “arbitral bodies established by private parties.” Based on this precedent, the court found that the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) did not qualify as a foreign tribunal under section 1782(a). While the court acknowledged that CIETAC was originally established in 1954 by the Chinese government, the court explained that: (1) CIETAC’s jurisdiction is derived exclusively from the private agreement of the parties to arbitration proceedings; (2) the parties, not the state, are permitted to choose their own arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding upon both parties; and (4) CIETAC itself emphasizes it is “independent of the administrative organs of the Chinese government, and free from any administrative interference in handling cases.” The court also noted that permitting parties to seek discovery through American courts under section 1782(a) would undermine significant advantages of arbitration, specifically, its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and thereby conflict with the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. The court therefore held that CIETAC is not a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of section 1782(a).

In re Application of Hanwei Guo, No. 1:18-mc-00561-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2019).

Court Enforces Arbitration Subpoena Against Third-Party Walgreens in Pharmaceutical Drug Overcharge Dispute

January 15, 2019 by Carlton Fields

The plaintiff in the underlying arbitration (Health Options) served a third-party subpoena on Walgreens to attend a hearing and produce documents concerning the prices it charged for pharmaceuticals to Navitus that Health Options ultimately covered. Walgreens initially declined to produce the requested information and a corporate representative for the hearing, claiming its headquarters was more than 100 miles from the hearing location in Madison, Wisconsin, and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court, however, granted a motion to enforce the arbitration subpoena. First, the court rejected Walgreens’s territoriality argument, accepting Health Options’s proposed method of measuring distance “as the crow flies” and finding that Walgreens’ headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois was less than 100 miles from Madison. Second, the court held that it had personal jurisdiction over Walgreens. The court concluded that Walgreens’s suit-related in-state activities—submitting inflated prices to Navitus that Navitus in turn submitted to Health Options—were sufficiently related to Health Options’s injuries—overpaying on Navitus’s claims. Walgreens’s “purposely-directed communications” to Navitus in Wisconsin were “part of the wrongful conduct” that prompted the lawsuit. Because it is unclear whether the traditional minimum contacts inquiry applies in the third-party discovery context, the court examined the additional criterion some circuits apply: whether a close relationship exists between the non-party’s contacts with the specific discovery request. Even with the heightened scrutiny, the court found the subpoena sought documents related specifically to Walgreens’s contact with Wisconsin. Finally, the court denied Walgreens’s request that Health Options pay its subpoena compliance costs up front. It found Walgreens did not demonstrate the subpoena would be unduly burdensome nor did it provide an estimate of costs, both flaws that precluded an award of costs, let alone upfront costs. Maine Community Health Options v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 18-0009 (USDC W.D. Wis. Dec. 20, 2018).

Ninth Circuit Holds that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Govern How to Calculate the FAA’s Three-Month Filing Deadline to Seek Vacatur of an Arbitration Award

January 14, 2019 by Benjamin Stearns

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition to vacate an arbitration award because the petition was filed one day late. The court determined that whether a petition to vacate is filed within the applicable three-month deadline under the FAA is based upon the method of calculating provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a). That Rule provides a three-step process: (1) exclude the day the arbitrator delivered the final award (in this case, September 14, 2016); (2) calculate three months from the following day (in this case September 15); and (3) include the last day of the period, unless it is on the weekend or a legal holiday, in which case the period concludes at the end of the next weekday that is not a legal holiday. Here, the court focused on Step 2. The court stated that each month began on the 15th day of the month and ended on the 14th day of the following month, just as “the month beginning January 1 concludes on January 31, not February 1.” Because the plaintiffs filed their petition for vacatur on December 15, when the last day for filing within the available three-month window under the FAA was December 14, the Ninth Circuit found that the petition was properly denied as untimely. The Ninth Circuit also addressed the standard for whether a post-judgment motion tolls the time to file an appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., No. 17-15965 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.