Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc.

Decision Date31 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-1356,77-1356
Citation572 F.2d 1328
PartiesSHINTO SHIPPING CO., LTD., Appellee, v. FIBREX & SHIPPING CO., INC., Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Clifford B. Alterman, of Kell, Alterman & Runstein, Portland, Or., for appellant.

M. Bayard Crutcher of Bogle & Gates, Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Before MERRILL, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:

Appellant appeals from the denial of a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt arbitration proceedings in progress in Japan. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellant and appellee, Shinto Shipping Co., entered into a Charter Agreement (Agreement) whereby appellee was to provide a ship to appellant. For various reasons appellant refused to accept the vessel. The Agreement provided that any dispute between the parties was to be submitted to arbitration before the Japane Shipping Exchange, Inc. (Arbitrators). The clause reads as follows:

"Any dispute arising from this Charter shall be submitted to arbitration held in Tokyo by the Japan Shipping Exchange, Inc. in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Arbitration Rules of the Japan Shipping Exchange, Inc., and the award given by the arbitrators shall be final and binding on both parties."

Appellee made application for arbitration on December 12, 1975. On December 16, 1975, appellant received notice from the Arbitrators, but the notice was written entirely in Japanese. Appellant almost immediately sought a written translation from the Arbitrators, but before it was received, appellee sued in federal district court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 8 to compel arbitration. After a series of delays appellant responded to the call for arbitration. The Arbitrators began consideration of the dispute in early July, 1976. They completed their hearings on November 30, 1977, but have not yet rendered a decision.

While the arbitration was in progress, appellee duly noticed and took depositions during August and September of 1976. Ostensibly, the depositions were taken pursuant to the district court suit to compel arbitration, but as the order from the denial of the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction notes, both sides were aware that the depositions were also for use in the arbitration proceedings. Several facts are undisputed. For example, the Japanese arbitration proceedings did not allow for mandatory depositions. Further, if, as appellant charges, appellee took the depositions for improper purposes, still, appellant, despite knowing of such purposes, participated in the taking of the depositions and failed to seek a protective order to limit or prohibit discovery.

One day after the last deposition was taken, appellant filed its answer in the appellee's suit to compel arbitration. Appellant alleged that by conducting depositions for improper purposes the appellee waived its right to proceed in arbitration. In addition, the appellant sought to stay the appellee from proceeding to arbitration. On October 18, 1976, appellant filed its motion seeking a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal.

DISCUSSION

Appellant's sole contention is that appellee waived its right to arbitration by taking depositions under the aegis of its suit to compel arbitration. We conclude that no waiver took place.

Although it is clear that a party can waive its right to arbitration, Demsey & Associates, Inc. v. Steamship Sea Star, 461 F.2d 1009 (CA2 1972), and Cornell & Co. v. Barber & Ross Co., 123 U.S.App.D.C. 378, 360 F.2d 512 (1966), nonetheless, waiver is not favored and the facts must be viewed in light of the strong federal policy supporting international arbitration agreements. Carcich v. Rederi A/B Nordie, 389 F.2d 692, 696 (CA2 1968). In Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974), the Supreme Court wrote:

"A parochial refusal by the courts of one country to enforce an international arbitration agreement would not only frustrate these purposes, but would invite unseemly and mutually destructive jockeying by the parties to secure tactical litigation advantages." Id. at 516-17, 94 S.Ct. at 2456.

Thus, this court must be convinced not only that the appellee acted inconsistently with that arbitration right, but that the appellant was prejudiced by this action before we can find a waiver. Erving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club, 468 F.2d 1064, 1068 (CA2 1972).

Clearly, the appellant was not prejudiced by the three depositions taken in August and September of 1976. First, the depositions all involved non-parties to the arbitration and litigation. Appellant does not attempt to show how...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Village of Cairo v. Bodine Contracting Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 1985
    ...the enforcement of the arbitration right, 5 or by a prior election to submit the issue to a court. Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex Shipping Co., Inc., 572 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir.1978); Marthame Sanders & Co. v. 400 West Madison Corporation, 401 So.2d 1145 (Fla.App.1981). See also the ......
  • Keating v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1982
    ...cannot carry the day." (Carcich v. Rederi A/B Nordie (2d Cir. 1968) 389 F.2d 692, 696; see Shinto Shipping Co. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 1978) 572 F.2d 1328, 1330.) Tested by these principles, the record fully supports the trial court's conclusion that there was no waiver in ......
  • Mullis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • July 1, 1980
    ...of the right to arbitration, but also actual prejudice to the other party before there is a waiver. Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc., 572 F.2d 1328 (1978). Here there has been neither an act inconsistent with the right nor any actual prejudice to the plaintiff. Merri......
  • Schuster v. Prestige Senior Mgmt., L.L.C.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 2016
    ...Corp. v. Forte, 169 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.1999) ; Rush v. Oppenheimer & Co., 779 F.2d 885 (2d Cir.1985) ; Shinto Shipping Co. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., 572 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir.1978). Yet, the overwhelming majority of cases support waiver under our appealed facts. Also, the Schuster family shows ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Two Bites at the Apple: the Prejudicial Burden in Arbitration Waiver
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 53-2, 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...(describing the "modern rule" as a "liberal national policy favoring arbitration").112. Shinto Shipping Co. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., 572 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1978) (citing Carcich v. Rederi A/B Nordie, 389 F.2d 692, 696 (2d Cir. 1968)).113. Belke v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smi......
  • Parochialism in arbitration? How some arbitration decisions by Florida courts are at variance with federal arbitration precedent.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 81 No. 2, February 2007
    • February 1, 2007
    ...with that right; and (3) Stifel's inconsistent acts prejudiced them."); Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc., 572 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1978) ("Thus, this court must be convinced not only that the appellee acted inconsistently with that arbitration right, but tha......

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