Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 August 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–05634.
• Citation: 35 F.Supp.3d 665
• Parties: CLIENTRON CORP., Plaintiff v. DEVON IT, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

35 F.Supp.3d 665

CLIENTRON CORP., Plaintiff
v.
DEVON IT, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13–05634.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed Aug. 8, 2014.

35 F.Supp.3d 668

George J. Krueger, Fox Rothschild LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Jeffrey C.P. Wang, WHGC PLC, Newport Beach, CA, John D. Vanlobensels, John D. Vanlobensels WHGC PLC, Mountain View, CA, for Plaintiff.

Gary M. Samms, Richard P. Limburg, Obermayer Rebbmann Maxwell & Hippell LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM RE DEVON'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLIENTRON'S PETITION TO ENFORCE ITS ARBITRATION AWARD/FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT

BAYLSON, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	Introduction	669
II.	The NY Convention	670

A.	An Argument Rejecting the Reciprocity Requirement	672
B.	The Reciprocity Requirement Controls	674

III.	Diversity Jurisdiction Exists for the Pennsylvania State Law Claim	677
IV.	Legal Standard	677

A.	Standard of Review	677
B.	Pennsylvania's Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act	678

V. Discussion 680

A.	Does Clientron Possess a Foreign Judgment as Defined by the UFMJRA?	680
B.	Was the Proceeding Contrary to an Agreement Between the Parties?	681

1.	Legal Standard for Determining Foreign Law	682
2.	Findings Regarding Taiwan Law	683
3.	The Contract at the Center of the Dispute	685
4.	Testimony at the Hearing	686

a.	Yun Cheng Liu	687
b.	Ming Yan Shieh	687
c.	Chung Tuh Lee	688

5. Discussion 690

a.	There Is an Agreement to Arbitrate	690
b.	The Arbitration Decision Is Final and Enforceable in Taiwan	691
c.	The Disputed Products Are Not Within the Scope of the SPA	691

i.	The Text of the SPA Contains a Mechanism for Incorporating New or Replacement Products	692
ii.	A Broad Reading of the Agreement to Cover All Thin–Client Products Undermines the Agreement's Structure	692
iii.	Clientron's Proffered Interpretation of the Words “Any Dispute” Is Overly Broad and Ignores How That Phrase Operates Within the Agreement as a Whole	692
iv.	Devon's Request for Repair Warranties Provides Some Support for the Contention That Devon Intended the Disputed Products to Be Covered by the SPA	693
v.	The Draft Release Agreement Is Not Probative of the Parties' Intent as to the Scope of the SPA	693

...