Newly Released Decisions
Charleston Immersive/Interactive Media Studio, LLC v. Aydin, No. 1:24-CV-04943-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2025)
Court granted defendant’s motion for a protective order, denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel production of certain evidence, and denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel in an action seeking vacatur of an arbitral award. Court found that it did not have a basis to second-guess the arbitrator’s evidentiary ruling on an issue of attorney-client privilege.
Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2025)
Court denied Spain’s motion to stay, finding that it failed to show that the Supreme Court is likely to grant certiorari in its case NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7032, or that it would be likely to succeed there on the merits. Court also found that Spain did not show it would be irreparably harmed by the case continuing, that the plaintiffs would likely be harmed by granting the stay, and that the public interest weighs in favor of denying the motion because stays in arbitration enforcement cases are only appropriate if they further the objectives of arbitration, such as speedy resolution.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. v. Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 1:23-CV-04825-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2025)
Court denied petition to vacate or modify arbitration award and granted the respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the award under the Panama Convention, holding that the tribunal had not committed procedural misconduct, exceeded its powers, or manifestly disregarded the law. Court determined that the admission of statements from two witnesses who did not appear for cross-examination did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair and affirmed the tribunal’s decision to hold a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, No. 1:23-CV-00186-AS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2024
Court denied third-party’s motion to seal finding it did not prove that its privacy interests warranted sealing a letter to defendant produced in an ICC arbitral proceeding against plaintiff. Court concluded that the third party failed to address plaintiff’s point that the arbitral terms of reference permitted disclosure for the purpose of enforcing a judgment and did not address the Second Circuit’s extensive case law in favor of the public’s right to access judicial documents in connection with a request for the Court to enter a judgment or issue a dispositive order.
Desarrolladora La Ribera, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Anderson, 1:24-CV-00067-LAK-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2024)
Court granted parties’ cross-motions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to the Panama Convention and FAA. Court determined defendant was required to arbitrate four of its counterclaims because plaintiff had not waived its right to compel arbitration, as it timely filed its motion to compel arbitration before it filed an answer, motions, or sought discovery. Court also found plaintiff was required to arbitrate its defamation claims, concluding that although questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator, the parties invited the court to determine the issue of scope in this case and the claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and determining that plaintiff was estopped from denying an obligation to arbitrate with non-signatory defendant.