798 F.3d 136
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Devon Robotics acquired distribution rights for CytoCare and i.v. Station from Health Robotics; DeViedma negotiated the distribution contracts and served as Health Robotics's general counsel.
- Each contract contained an ICC arbitration clause in Geneva, English language, with a single mutually agreed arbitrator.
- Health Robotics later terminated CytoCare and entered into a direct agreement with McKesson; DeViedma allegedly impeded due diligence and communicated financially challenged status to Devon’s customers.
- Devon sued DeViedma and McKesson for fiduciary duty, tortious interference, defamation, and conspiracy; an earlier district court ruling dismissed some claims and left others intact.
- DeViedma moved for summary judgment arguing Devon’s claims were arbitrable in Switzerland; the district court denied on the fiduciary duty claim, granting summary judgment on tortious interference to Devon.
- DeViedma appealed interlocutorily, arguing the denial should be reviewed under the FAA § 16 framework for appeals from orders to compel arbitration, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16(a)(1)(C) permits an appeal from a denial of summary judgment on arbitrability. | Devon argues the district court’s denial is an appealable § 16(a)(1)(C) order. | DeViedma contends the denial is not a § 16 appealable order because it is a summary judgment denial, not a § 4 petition or § 206 application to compel arbitration. | Section 16 does not extend to denials of summary judgment; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp., 111 F.3d 343 (3d Cir. 1996) (motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration not appealable under §16)
- Lloyd v. HOVENSA, LLC, 369 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (structural reading of FAA limits §16 appeals)
- Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (when arbitrability is disputed, court may consider enforcement under §4)
- Conrad v. Phone Directories Co., 585 F.3d 1376 (10th Cir. 2009) (focus on relief requested to determine §16 jurisdiction)
- Bombardier Corp. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 333 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (narrow approach to categorizing motions under §16)