International treaties and conventions such as 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”), and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6998 (“the New York Convention”) are considered to be federal law and hence prevail over inconsistent state common law. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2: American Ins. Assoc. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). For this reason, such treaties and conventions are often strictly construed by U.S. courts without regard to common law principles.
Two appellate court decisions from earlier this year involving international litigation in U.S. courts, however, illustrate a departure from this practice. In both cases, the respective courts, in interpreting the Hague Service Convention and the New York Convention, construed such agreements through the prism of U.S. common law.
In Rockefeller Technology v. Changzhou Sino Type Technology, 2020 DJDAR 2943 (Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), parties entered into a commercial contract wherein they agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the California courts and to resolve disputes between them through California arbitration. They also agreed to provide notice and “service of process” to each other through FedEx or similar courier.
Disagreements arose between the parties, and Rockefeller, invoking the notice and “service of process” provisions in the agreement, commenced an arbitration against Changzhou. Changzhou neither responded to nor appeared in the arbitration. The arbitration ended with a decision in Rockefeller’s favor, the arbitrator having determined that Changzhou owed Rockefeller in excess of $414 million in damages.
Rockefeller subsequently sought and obtained confirmation of the arbitration award in the California courts, so that Rockefeller now had an enforceable California judgment for damages against Changzhou. Changzhou did not appear in that proceeding or otherwise contest confirmation of the arbitration award.
Following entry of that judgment, Changzhou specially appeared and moved to quash and set aside the default judgment on the ground that it had not been properly served with Rockefeller’s arbitration demand and subsequent papers. Changzhou argued that Rockefeller’s failure to have followed the service protocols under the Hauge Service Convention rendered the judgment confirming the arbitration award void. In this regard, it argued that because China objected to Section 10(a) of the Hauge Service Convention — which allows service of process by mail — Rockefeller’s use of the contractually allowed method of service fell afoul of the Hague Service Convention’s rules normally preemptive rules governing international service.
The California Supreme Court posed the key question presented by the case as follows: whether China’s objection to Section 10(a) estops its citizens from agreeing to notification and service protocols that are arguably covered by Section 10. Relying on the principle that whether there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad will be determined by reference to the law of the forum — in this case, California — the court determined that the state law doctrine of waiver would apply. Put simply, the court determined that the parties’ agreement concerning the manner in which service of process would be effectuated constituted a waiver by Changzhou of any entitlement to insist on compliance with the Hague Service Convention protocols, notwithstanding China’s objection to Section 10(a). Thus, Rockefeller illustrates that U.S. courts will sometimes apply U.S. common law doctrines, such as waiver and estoppel, in interpreting agreements having to do with international litigation.
A similar approach was taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC, 2020 DJDAR 5215 (June 1, 2020). In that case, the issue was whether a nonsignatory to an agreement containing an arbitration provision could invoke that provision against a signatory and thereafter utilize the enforcement mechanism of the New York Convention to enforce the arbitrator’s award.
In this case, Thyssen Krupp Stainless USA, LLC and F. I. Industries, Inc. entered into an agreement for the construction of cold rolling mills at Thyssen’s plant in Alabama. The agreement contained an arbitration provision which provided that “all disputes arising in connection with or in the performance of the Contract … shall be submitted to arbitration for settlement.”
Importantly, the agreement also defined the “parties” to include their respective “subcontractors.” After entering into the main agreement with Thyssen, F. I. Industries, Inc. entered into a subcontract agreement with GE Energy for the manufacture and installation of motors for the Alabama facility. Following GE Energy’s installation of the motors, Thyssen’s successor (Outokumpu) sued GE Energy, alleging that GE Energy’s motors failed to properly perform, resulting in substantial damages. GE Energy removed the lawsuit to district court and successfully moved to dismiss and compel arbitration of the dispute, the district court ruling that GE Energy qualified as a “party” under the arbitration clause because of its identification as a “subcontractor”.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the New York Convention only allowed actual signatories to a contract containing an arbitration provision to enforce such a provision. The 11th Circuit further held that because GE Energy was undeniably not a signatory to the underlying contract, it could not rely on state-law equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce the arbitration agreement. This was based on the court’s view that the state-law doctrine of equitable estoppel conflicted with the Convention’s signatory requirement.
The U.S. Supreme court reversed the 11th Circuit’s determination and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court noted that the Federal Arbitration Act “permits courts to apply state-law doctrines related to the enforcement of arbitration agreements.” In this regard, the court noted that equitable estoppel allows a nonsignatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause to compel arbitration where a signatory to the agreement must rely on the terms of the agreement in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory. The court concluded that nothing in the drafting history of the New York Convention suggested that it sought to prevent contracting states from applying domestic law that permits nonsignatories to enforce arbitration agreements in this context.
This article was originally published in the Daily Journal. View the original post here.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014