92 F.4th 815
9th Cir.2024Background
- Voltage Pictures, LLC (Voltage), a U.S.-based film company, and Gussi S.A. de C.V. (Gussi SA), a Mexican corporation, were parties to a Distribution and License Agreement (DLA) with an arbitration provision governed by California law.
- After a dispute arose regarding the DLA, Voltage initiated arbitration pursuant to the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) Rules; the arbitration resulted in an award for Voltage.
- Voltage filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to confirm the arbitral award, serving notice on Gussi SA's attorneys via mail.
- Gussi SA moved to quash service and argued that federal law or international conventions, not California law, governed service; it also pointed to purported parallel proceedings in Mexico, allegedly enjoining Voltage from confirming the award in the U.S.
- The district court confirmed the award, ruling on both service and jurisdiction, and denied Gussi SA’s request for comity with the alleged Mexican order. Gussi SA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff (Voltage) Argument | Defendant (Gussi SA) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | District court had diversity jurisdiction. | Diversity jurisdiction lacking due to unspecified LLC members. | Court lacked diversity jurisdiction but had FAA/§203 jurisdiction |
| Law Governing Service of Motion to Confirm Arbitral Award | California law applies per DLA & IFTA Rules. | Federal law governs service in federal court. | Federal law (not CA law) governs service in federal court |
| Sufficiency of Service Under FAA and Federal Rules | Mailing to counsel is sufficient service. | Service must comply with Rule 4/federal rules or treaties. | Rule 5(b) governs; service by mailing to counsel is sufficient |
| Comity to Uncertified Mexican Court Order | Mexican order doesn’t preclude confirmation | U.S. court must stay or dismiss due to Mexican injunction | No certified order; court properly denied comity |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1981) (FAA confirmation provisions do not themselves confer federal jurisdiction)
- NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2016) (LLC citizenship determined by its members, not place of business)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (Federal procedural law governs service in federal court unless waived)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (personal jurisdiction standard in federal courts)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (no diversity jurisdiction where aliens are on both sides with no diverse U.S. parties)
- Firebaugh Canal Co. v. United States, 203 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2000) (use of "shall" in statute indicates mandatory requirement)
- Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022) (FAA does not allow courts to create arbitration-favoring procedures)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (difference between subject matter and personal jurisdiction)