Sam Reisfeld & Son Import Co. v. S. A. Eteco

• Decision Date: 26 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 74--4182,74--4182
• Parties: 1976-1 Trade Cases 60,851 SAM REISFELD & SON IMPORT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. A. ETECO et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 679

530 F.2d 679

1976-1 Trade Cases 60,851

SAM REISFELD & SON IMPORT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. A. ETECO et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 74--4182.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 26, 1976.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1976.

Marian M. Berkett, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cicero C. Sessions, Robert E. Barkley, Jr., New Orleans, La., J. Edward Meyer, III, New York City, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before MORGAN, CLARK and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from the district court's order staying a portion of Reisfeld's action pending arbitration of the issues in Coutrai, Belgium. Reisfeld's principal complaint centers on the situs selected for arbitration of disputes arising under its 1960 contract with S.A. Eteco. Finding no legal impediment to enforcement of any portion of the arbitration clause, we affirm the district court's order.

For over 35 years, the New Orleans firm of Reisfeld & Son acted as the exclusive sales representative for S.A. Eteco, a sales subsidiary of a large Belgium wire products manufacturer. In 1960, Reisfeld and Eteco executed a written agency contract containing an arbitration clause which required all disputes to be settled by arbitration in Coutrai, Belgium. Twelve years later, Eteco notified Reisfeld that it was terminating the arrangement and subsequently began distributing its products directly through a new sales office in the United States. In response to this cancellation, Reisfeld sued Eteco for breach of contract. Additionally, Reisfeld asserted a tort claim arising from misuse of confidential customer information and alleged antitrust violations based on refusals to deal, conspiracy to boycott and attempted monopolization against Eteco, Eteco's successor (N.V. Bekaert Overseas) and Eteco's parent corporation (N.V. Bekaert, S.A.). When defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the court treated the motion as one seeking a stay pending arbitration. After receiving written affidavits from both sides, the court stayed all but the antitrust claims.

In this court, Reisfeld reurges its contention that the forum chosen for arbitration is so unreasonable that it either vitiates the arbitration clause altogether or requires transfer to a more neutral situs. While conceding that 'unreasonableness of situs' has not been traditionally recognized as cause to cancel or modify an arbitration clause, Reisfeld attempts to extend the rules relating to forum-selection clauses to the arbitration area. Principal reliance is placed on the Supreme Court's decision in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), an admiralty case which held that forum-selection clauses in international agreements should be enforced unless found to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Applying the Bremen standard, Reisfeld classifies Coutrai as an unreasonable forum, pointing to defendants' economic dominance in the area and the inconvenience and expense Reisfeld would encounter if forced to arbitrate in this forum which is both remote and foreign in language.

Reisfeld's attack falters on its initial premise that the Bremen unreasonableness test is applicable to arbitration clauses. Rather, we agree with the district court that the enforceability of the arbitration clause at issue is governed exclusively by the explicit provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1--14. Under ...