278 F.3d 90 (2nd Cir. 2002), 01-7624, Salim Oleochemicals v Shropshire
|Docket Nº:||Docket No. 01-7624|
|Citation:||278 F.3d 90|
|Party Name:||SALIM OLEOCHEMICALS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. M/V SHROPSHIRE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.|
|Case Date:||January 18, 2002|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
August 20, 2001
Plaintiff-appellant brought an action against defendants-appellees for monetary damages. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.) ordered the matter to arbitration, dismissing the case without prejudice. The question before this Court is whether plaintiff may appeal the district court's order under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 16. We hold that a dismissal without prejudice in favor of arbitration is an appealable final decision under the FAA.
Motion to dismiss denied.
Before: Sack, Sotomayor, and Katzmann, Circuit Judges.
Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Plaintiff Salim Oleochemicals, Inc. ("SOI") purchased a cargo of glycerine in 1996 and contracted to ship the cargo from Indonesia to New Jersey. SOI was the consignee on the shipment's bill of lading. The bill explicitly incorporated a contract of affreightment between defendant Botany Bay Parcel Tankers International ("BBPTI") and Salim Oleochemicals Pte. Page 91
Ltd., providing that any arbitration was to be conducted in London.
After the cargo arrived damaged by contamination, SOI sold it for salvage and brought an action for monetary damages against all of the defendants - M/V Shropshire, Bibby International Services (IOM) Ltd., Langston Shipping Ltd., BBPTI, and Botany Bay Management Services Pty. Ltd. (collectively, "defendants"). Thereafter, defendants requested that the action be stayed pending arbitration in London, as provided for in the contract of affreightment. SOI agreed to the arbitration, but sought to arbitrate the dispute only under the terms of the contract of affreightment, not the bill of lading in which the contract was incorporated. Defendants contended that the arbitrator lacked subject matter jurisdiction because SOI was not a signatory to the contract. When SOI refused to bring the arbitration claims under the terms of the bill of lading, the arbitrator granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Following the arbitrator's ruling, SOI reopened its action in the district court and moved for summary judgment. The defendants opposed the motion and moved to compel SOI to bring the action, under the contract as incorporated in the bill of lading, in a London arbitration. SOI then moved for sanctions against the defendants for moving to compel arbitration.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.) granted defendants' motion and denied SOI's motion. The district court also denied SOI's subsequent motion for reconsideration and request for certification of the court's prior order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP