Tube City IMS, LLC v. Anza Capital Partners, LLC
25 F. Supp. 3d 486
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Tube City and Anza entered a 2010 contract for sale of certain scrap metal, with shipments from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic to Taiwan.
- In 2010 Anza invoiced $90,703.94; Tube City paid that amount in May 2010 and again in June 2010, creating a duplicate payment Tube City could not recover.
- Arbitration clause Article 13 provides submission to ICC in New York; the award is final and binding and the losing party pays arbitration costs.
- Arbitration filed October 5, 2012; Anza answered November 14, 2012; an August 1, 2013 hearing in Manhattan before a single arbitrator (Emma Lindsay, Esq.) was held; New York law applied via ICC rules.
- February 19, 2014 Award ordered Anza to repay $90,703.94 to Tube City and to pay ICC costs ($50,000) and Tube City’s costs ($87,022), totaling $227,725.94; Anza has not paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to confirm under FAA §9 | Consent implied by participation and final-binding language | No explicit consent in the agreement to§9 confirmation | Yes; consent shown by arbitration participation and contract language |
| Whether the award should be confirmed with limited review | Section 9 confirmation is a summary proceeding with limited review | Not applicable (unopposed) | Award confirmed; no basis to vacate or modify |
| Whether ICC-based arbitration suffices to show consent to confirmation | Full participation plus final and binding award supports consent | ICC rules lack explicit AAA-style consent-to-confirmation provision | Consent satisfied through participation and finality language; §9 applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (considers FAA Chapter 9 proceedings; limited review principles)
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (arbitration awards require court enforcement as judgments)
- I/S Stavborg v. Nat’l Metal Converters, Inc., 500 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1974) (consent to §9 may be implicit via participation and finality language)
- Kallen v. District 1199, Nat’l Union of Hosp. and Health Care Employees, 574 F.2d 723 (2d Cir. 1978) (consent to §9 shown by arbitration participation and contract language)
- Phoenix Aktiengesellschaft v. Ecoplas, Inc., 391 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2004) (preempts §9 consent requirement under certain international arbitration schemes)
- Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Grp., Inc., 617 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2010) (consent to confirmation can be inferred from agreement language and process)
- Nassau County v. Chase, 402 Fed. Appx. 540 (2d Cir. 2010) (confirming under NY CPLR alternative where contract governs appeal)