Alstom et al v. General Electric Company
| Alstom and Alstom Transport Holdings B.V. |
| General Electric Company |
| 1:2016cv03568 |
| May 13, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of U.S. |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
64
OPINION AND ORDER re: 38 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by General Electric Company, 62 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Stephen L. Ascher dated July 22, 2016 filed by General Electric Company, 48 MOTION to Stay Proceedings and/or Compel Arbitration filed by General Electric Company, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alstom Transport Holdings B.V., Alstom. In s hort, given the language of the Agreement and the undisputed facts, the Court concludes that the parties' disputes must be submitted in the first instance to the IAF, not the ICC. See 9 U.S.C. § 4 ("[U]pon being satisfied that th e making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement." (emphasis added)); se e also Severstal U.S. Holdings, LLC v. RG Steel, LLC, 865 F. Sup. 2d 430, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting there is "no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court" in enforcing this mandatory remedy). Accordingly, Alstom' s motion for summary judgment and to compel submission to the IAF is GRANTED, and GE's cross-motions-which, in one way or another, seek to compel arbitration before the ICC-are DENIED. One final question remains: whether the Court should ent er judgment and close the case or stay proceedings pending arbitration before the IAF. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires a district court to stay proceedings where an issue before it requires arbitration, see 9 U.S.C. 67; 3, but a district court has discretion to dismiss, rather than stay, an action where, as here, all of the issues in the case must be arbitrated, see Salim Oleochemicals v. M/V Shropshire, 278 F.3d 90, 92-93 (2d Cir. 2002). The Second Circuit h as urged district courts to be "be mindful of the fact that a dismissal is appealable whereas a granting of a stay is not, and '[u]nnecessary delay of the arbital process through appellate review is disfavored.'" HBC Solutions , 2014 WL 6982921, at *9 (quoting Salim Oleochemicals, 278 F.3d at 93). The Court will therefore stay the proceedings pending arbitration of Alstom's claims by the IAF. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 26, 38, 48, and 62. Further, as there is no reason to keep the case open pending the arbitration, the Clerk is directed to administratively close the case without prejudice to either party moving by letter motion to reopen the case within thirty days of the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/10/2017) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
