BUSINESS LAW

The jurisdiction of arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction, or what is often described as the competence-competence doctrine, remains one of the more complex areas of arbitration law in the United States. Recently, in the case of ROHM Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. which arose out of California, the Federal Circuit was confronted with the question of whether the competence-competence doctrine applies where the parties have incorporated by reference the California Code of Civil Procedure, or “CCCP” into their agreement to arbitrate. As discussed further below, the answer to this question turned on whether an arbitration is classified as international or domestic.

0 COMMENTS

On June 1, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, No. 18-1048, 2020 WL 2814297 (U.S. June 1, 2020) (“GE Energy v. Outokumpu”), holding that the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the “New York Convention”)[i] does not conflict with the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories under equitable estoppel doctrines found in domestic law. The ...

0 COMMENTS

On April 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of California issued a much-awaited decision on whether Parties to international arbitration seated in California are allowed to waive the requirements of service of process contained in the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (the “Hague Service Convention” or the “Convention”). In Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType ...

0 COMMENTS

On October 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an opinion in Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC, No. 17-55813, 2019 WL 5382062 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019) vacating an arbitration award issued by a JAMS arbitrator for failure to disclose that: (1) the arbitrator was a co-owner of JAMS, and (2) the winning party had several prior cases with JAMS.  The Ninth Circuit determined that the failure to disclose these points justified vacatur of the ...

0 COMMENTS

At last, a California appellate decision has provided clear instructions on how to draft a settlement agreement with payments secured by a judgment that will stand up in court. In a 2015 note, we discussed the law at that time on this topic and suggested how to draft an agreement that will withstand challenge.  The recent decision in Red & White Distribution, LLC v. Osteroid Enterprises, LLC, 2019 DJDAR 7516 (August 9, 2019), validates our advice and provides a ...

0 COMMENTS

Recently, the option of a private jury trial has been elected by litigants as the preferable means to gain control of trial proceedings.  The parties have the ability to select the judge, the bailiff, discovery limitations, rules of civil procedure and evidence, controlling law, length of trial, timing of trial commencement, orders of confidentiality, measures of security, and the finality of a decision.  Seeing that complex cases may take years to wind their way through trial and the appellate process at tremendous expense, the finality of decision holds a cost-benefit appeal for both sides.

0 COMMENTS