Free Order on Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03220-SC

Document 13

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., and APL CO. Pte., LTD., Plaintiffs, v. D.S.R. SHIPPING CO., INC., a corporation, Defendant.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C-07-3220 SC ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

I.

INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Confirm

Arbitration Award ("Motion") filed by the plaintiffs American President Lines, Ltd., and APL Co. Pte., Ltd. ("Plaintiffs"). Docket No. 9. See

Defendant D.S.R. Shipping Co., Inc. ("Defendant")

has not made a formal appearance in this action or filed an Opposition to the pending matter. Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion. For the following reasons, the

II.

BACKGROUND In 2002 Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant to

ship Defendant's cargo to Central America.

See Pet. for Order

Confirming Award of Arbitrator ("Petition"), Docket No. 1, ¶ 7. Pursuant to the contract, any disputes between the parties would

Case 3:07-cv-03220-SC

Document 13

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

be submitted to arbitration in San Francisco, California.

Id.

The parties agreed that any decision by an arbitrator would be final, binding, and not subject to further review. Id. In

addition, the contract provided that a decision by the arbitrator may be enforced in any court, tribunal, or other forum that may properly assert jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 8. The parties agreed that

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California would have personal jurisdiction over each party. Id.

A dispute between the parties arose and Plaintiffs initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") on December 26, 2006. Id. ¶ 10. Following notice to

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs and Defendant, including preliminary hearings by telephone, an arbitration was conducted in April 2007 before the AAA-appointed arbitrator, Richard Collier. Id. ¶ 11. On April

18, 2007, the arbitrator awarded Plaintiffs the principal amount of $14,700, attorneys' fees of $2,340 and costs of $1,900, for a total award of $18,940. Id. ¶ 12. Defendant has failed to

satisfy this arbitration award.

Plaintiffs seek a judgment on the

arbitration award to that they may enforce it.

III. DISCUSSION Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 9, any party to an arbitration award may apply to the court for an order confirming the award if the parties have previously agreed to such an action. Section 9 states that "a court must grant such an

order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title." -29 U.S.C. § 9.

Case 3:07-cv-03220-SC

Document 13

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Neither section 10 nor 11 is relevant to the matter at hand. noted above, the award has not been vacated, modified, or corrected. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion.

As

IV.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs'

Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3Dated: December 14, 2007