Newly Released Decisions
Agrasanchez v. Agrasanchez, No. 23-55110 (9th Cir. July 12, 2024)
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to vacate an arbitration award due to fraud. To vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, the fraud must “not be discoverable by due diligence before or during the [arbitration] proceeding.” Here, petitioners did not act with diligence in taking six years to investigate a document they suspected to be fraudulent. Additionally, court of appeals found the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to alter or amend the judgment, as petitioners failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to or during the arbitration hearing.
Adk Plaza-Centrum, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 3:23-CV-01405-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 11, 2024)
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration against plaintiffs, finding that all four requirements for enforcing an arbitration clause under the New York Convention are met: (1) there is a written arbitration agreement, (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in New York and the United States is a New York Convention signatory, (3) the agreement arises out of a commercial relationship between the parties, and (4) two of the defendants are not American citizens. Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs maintained separate contracts with the foreign and domestic insurers, but where the operative policy language across contracts was nearly identical, the court found that equitable estoppel applied and required the court to compel arbitration.
Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang, No. 1:24-CV-00137-CEF (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2024)
Court granted an automatic stay for one of the two respondents, holding an automatic stay issued in connection with Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings only extends to non-debtors in “unusual circumstances” and no evidence supporting an exception for the second respondent was present here. Court further rejected second respondent’s argument that the arbitration enforcement petition was premature because of pending Chinese proceedings where the second respondent could not present any compelling evidence of ongoing proceedings in China.