Impson v. Dixie Elec. Membership Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-632-JWD-RLB

CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana
PartiesAMY IMPSON, ET AL. v. DIXIE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, ET AL.
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 14-632-JWD-RLB
Decision Date24 March 2015
NOTICE

Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 24, 2015.

/s/_________

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is a Motion to Remand filed by Amy Impson and John Robinson ("Plaintiffs"). (R. Doc. 7). The motion is opposed by the removing defendant, Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services, Ltd. ("AEGIS"). (R. Doc. 8). Having reviewed the pleadings, the parties' arguments, and the applicable law, the court concludes that AEGIS has met its burden of establishing removal jurisdiction pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("the Convention"), codified at 9 U.S.C. § 201-208. Accordingly, the Motion to Remand should be denied.

I. Background

On June 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Petition in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana alleging that defendants Dixie Electric Membership Corporation and Donnie Young are liable for injuries caused to the Plaintiffs in an automobile accident. (R. Doc. 2-1 at 1-5). On April 21, 2014, the state court entered into the record Plaintiffs' First Supplemental and Amending Petition, which named AEGIS Security Insurance Company as defendant pursuant to the Louisiana direct action statute, La. R.S. 22:655 (R. Doc. 2-1 at 6-9). On June 23, 2014, the state court entered into the record Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental and Amending Petition naming AEGIS as the correct insurer defendant. (R. Doc. 2-1 at 14-17).

On October 6, 2014, AEGIS removed the action alleging that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Convention. (R. Doc. 2). AEGIS alleges that the policy at issue contains an arbitration provision that "falls under the convention" pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 202 and that the state court litigation "relates to" the arbitration provision for the purposes of 9 U.S.C. § 205. (R. Doc. 2 at 6). AEGIS attached the policy at issue to its Notice of Removal. (R. Doc. 2-3). The policy's arbitration provision provides, in pertinent part, the following:

Any controversy or dispute arising out of or relating to this POLICY, or the breach, termination or validity thereof, which has not been resolved by non-binding means as provided herein within ninety (90) days of the initiation of such procedure, shall be settled by binding arbitration . . . .

(R. Doc. 2-3 at 18). The "non-binding means" of resolution referenced in the arbitration provision are governed by provisions requiring non-binding negotiation and mediation prior to the commencement of arbitration. (R. Doc. 2-3 at 17-18).

In the Notice of Removal, AEGIS alleges that the arbitration provision "falls under" the Convention because (1) it is a written agreement to arbitration; (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in the United States, which is a Convention signatory nation; (3) the relationship between AEGIS and its insureds arise out of a "commercial legal relationship"; and (4) AEGIS, a citizen of Bermuda, is not a citizen of the United States. (R. Doc. 2 at 6). AEGIS further alleges that the state court litigation "relates to" the arbitration provision because this action was brought pursuant to the Louisiana direct action statute, and, therefore, the plaintiffs "have effectively stepped into the shoes of the named insureds." (R. Doc. 2 at 7). The other defendants consent to removal. (R. Doc. 2 at 7).

On November 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand, arguing that the arbitration provision does not consist of a "valid" arbitration agreement because there has beenno attempt at resolution of this controversy or dispute through the non-binding means of resolution provided by the policy. (R. Doc. 7).

II. Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs argue that AEGIS has not met its burden of proving that a "valid agreement to arbitrate" exists under the terms of the AEGIS policy as required pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 202. (R. Doc. 7-2 at 2). Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana contract law principles govern whether the arbitration provision constitutes a valid agreement to arbitration. (R. Doc. 7-2 at 3-4). Plaintiffs claim that the AEGIS policy does not contain a valid arbitration agreement because the "narrow conditions for the AEGIS policy to sustain an agreement to arbitrate this matter are clearly not met." (R. Doc. 7-2 at 4). Plaintiffs argue that because the parties have not sought resolution by non-binding means, a contractual requirement before an actual binding arbitration may commence, "there is no contractual agreement to mandatory [arbitration] in this matter." (R. Doc. 7-2 at 4).

In opposition, AEGIS argues that it correctly alleged in the Notice of Removal that the policy at issue contains an arbitration provision that "falls under the convention" pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 202. (R. Doc. 8 at 3-4). AEGIS further argues that the contractual prerequisites for arbitration in the arbitration provision are irrelevant because "defendant is not required to prove that it can successfully compel arbitration to justify removal and federal court jurisdiction." (R. Doc. 8 at 5-6). AEGIS notes that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that the arbitration provision "relates to" the present litigation as required by 9 U.S.C. § 205. (R. Doc. 8 at 3).

III. Law and Analysis

Federal courts have jurisdiction over actions or proceedings failing under the Convention, which "shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States." 9 U.S.C. §203. The Convention allows removal of cases from state court where the state court proceeding "relates to" an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention:

Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention, the defendant or the defendants may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending.

9 U.S.C. § 205. The Fifth Circuit has held where an arbitration provision provides that certain types of disputes must be arbitrated, it "relates to" a lawsuit filed in state court seeking resolution of those types of disputes and is, therefore, removable. Acosta v. Master Maintenance and Const. Inc., 452 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because Section 205 of the Convention is "one of the broadest removal provisions . . . in the statute books," the general rule that removal statutes are construed strictly against removal does not apply to it. Id. "[W]henever an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention could conceivably affect the outcome of the plaintiff's case, the agreement 'relates to' to the plaintiff's suit." Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 2002). "Even if [the plaintiff] is right on the merits that he cannot ultimately be forced into arbitration, his suit at least has a 'connection with' the contracts governing the transaction out of which his claims arise" and, therefore, the suit "relates to" the arbitration agreement at issue." Id. at 669. In short, the defendant removing a state court action under the Convention need not show to an absolute legal certainty that it "has the right to enforce the arbitration agreement." QPro Inc. v. RTD Quality Servs. USA, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 817, 824-25 (S.D. Tex. 2010).

There is no dispute that the arbitration provision at issue in this action "relates to" the proceeding brought by the Plaintiffs as required by Section 205 of the Convention.1 ThePlaintiffs' sole argument is the AEGIS policy's arbitration provision is not a "valid" arbitration agreement and, therefore, does not "fall under" the Convention pursuant to Section 202 of the Convention.

Under Section 202 of the Convention, an "agreement 'falls under' the Convention when "(1) there is an agreement in writing to arbitrate the dispute; (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in a territory that is a signatory to the Convention; (3) the relationship arises out of a commercial legal relationship; and (4) a party to the agreement is not an American citizen." Layson v. Baffin Investments, Ltd., No. 14-518, 2015 WL 1084529, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 11, 2015) (citing Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 404 F.3d 898, 903 (5th Cir. 2005)).2 There is no dispute that the last three factors are satisfied: the agreement provides for arbitration in the United States, which is a Convention signatory nation; the relationship between AEGIS and its insureds (and therefore the Plaintiffs and AEGIS's insureds) arise out of a "commercial legal relationship"; and AEGIS is a citizen of Bermuda, not of the United States. The sole issuein dispute is the first factor, namely whether the arbitration provision is an "agreement in writing to arbitrate the dispute."

Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision at issue is not a "valid" arbitration agreement because the contractual requirement that the parties to the policy attempt...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT