Sr. Kate Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23281
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Doe Run operated a Peruvian smelting facility whose pollution is alleged to have injured local residents, including 35 children.
- Renco, a Doe Run associate, is arbitrating related claims with Peru; Peru is potentially involved in the arbitration.
- Defendants sought both a mandatory and discretionary stay pending arbitration; the district court denied both.
- The suit was removed to federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 205 because it relates to an arbitration under the Convention.
- The district court’s denial of the stay was appealed; the court of appeals affirmed.
- Renco’s arbitration seeks Peru’s defense/indemnity and remediation obligations; issues include whether the arbitration relate to or are referable to arbitration under the STA and Peruvian environmental program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action is within § 205 removal scope | Beiser/Infuturia support expansive § 205. | Relates to arbitration; broad removal. | Yes, removal proper under § 205. |
| Whether the discretionary stay claim is appealable pendent. | Claims are inextricably intertwined with mandatory stay. | No pendent jurisdiction over discretionary stay. | No pendent appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether the district court correctly denied a mandatory stay under § 3 | Arbitration could determine key issues; strong policy favoring arbitration. | Issues are not referable to arbitration; claims differ. | District court did not err; stay denied. |
| Whether nonsignatories can be bound to arbitration to trigger stay | Nonsignatories cannot be bound absent direct benefit. | Nonsignatories may be bound by estoppel/direct-benefits theories. | Direct-benefits estoppel does not apply to these facts; stay denied. |
| Whether the issues are referable to arbitration (and relate to the STA/Arbitration) | Arising claims do not rely on STA; not referable. | Issues overlap with arbitration; referable. | Issues not referable; relate to arbitration but not referable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2002) (arbitration may relate to a case if it could affect the outcome)
- Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharm., Inc., 631 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘relates to’ is broad; could affect outcome)
- Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr. Inc., 452 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2006) (expands ‘relates to’ to include connection or reference)
- United States v. Weis, 487 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2007) (illustrates broad scope of ‘relates to’)
- Estes v. Fed. Express Corp., 417 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 2005) (claims relate to plan if they bear reference or connection)
- Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco Int’l, Inc., 526 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2008) (pendent appellate jurisdiction limits)