921 F.3d 766
9th Cir.2019Background
- Castro, a Filipino seaman employed by Tri Marine, was injured aboard the F/V Captain Vincent Gann and later negotiated a monetary settlement with Tri Marine while in the Philippines.
- Castro signed release documents (containing arbitration-in-American Samoa clauses) and received an advance; parties dispute whether Castro was informed the meeting would be an arbitration or fully understood the documents.
- After signing, Tri Marine and Castro met informally with an accredited Philippine arbitrator (Biares) in a public lobby; no case was filed, no submission agreement or formal pleadings were exchanged, and no arbitration proceedings had been pending.
- The arbitrator signed a one-page “order” acknowledging the settlement and dismissing the “case” with prejudice; Tri Marine later sought to confirm that order in U.S. federal court under the New York Convention.
- The district court confirmed the order as a foreign arbitral award and dismissed Castro’s suit; the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the order qualified as an “arbitral award” under the Convention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the document is an "arbitral award" under the New York Convention | Castro: No; there was no arbitration or award because the parties had already settled and formal arbitral procedures were not followed | Tri Marine: Yes; an accredited arbitrator issued an order approving and dismissing the matter, so it is an award entitled to enforcement | Held: Not an arbitral award—no dispute existed to arbitrate and required arbitral procedures and venue were not followed |
| Whether a post‑settlement meeting with an arbitrator can convert a settlement into a consent award | Castro: Timing matters; consent awards require a constituted tribunal and proceedings pending when settlement occurs | Tri Marine: Parties can reduce a settlement to an award by having an arbitrator sign an approval | Held: Consent‑award doctrine requires a tribunal already constituted and proceedings pending; here settlement preceded any arbitration, so no consent award |
| Whether parties waived their agreed arbitration forum and rules (American Samoa) by meeting in the Philippines lobby | Castro: No waiver; manner and setting show no informed consent to change forum or rules | Tri Marine: Implied waiver / practical acceptance by meeting the arbitrator in the Philippines | Held: No waiver shown; proceedings diverged from parties’ written agreements and Philippine procedural prerequisites were not met |
| Effect on federal jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings | Castro: Absence of an award undermines Convention-based removal and summary confirmation | Tri Marine: Case properly removed and summary confirmed under the Convention | Held: Court vacated confirmation and remanded; left open whether subject matter still "relates to" an arbitration agreement for jurisdiction—district court to decide on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974) (describing U.S. policy favoring enforcement of international arbitration agreements)
- Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Sys., Inc., 623 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2010) (Convention Act affords deference to foreign arbitral awards; burden on resisting party to prove defenses)
- Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2007) (confirmation under the Convention is a summary proceeding with limited factual inquiry)
- CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hosaka v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2002) (treaties interpreted de novo)
- United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52 (1989) (recognizing consent awards where parties initiated arbitration then settled during proceedings)
- Infuturia Glob. Ltd. v. Sequus Pharm., Inc., 631 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2011) (broad reading of "relates to" for Convention Act removal jurisdiction)