United States / 10 May 2005 / United States, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas / Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co. v. ACI Int’l, Inc / 03-4165-JAR
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas |
| Date | 10 May 2005 |
| Parties | Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co. v. ACI Int’l, Inc |
| Case number | 03-4165-JAR |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | IV | V | II(2) | II(3) | V(1)(b) |
| Source |
online: PACER |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Guang Dong Light Headgear Co., Ltd. (“Guang Dong”) and ACI International, Inc. (“ACI”) entered into fourteen sales contracts, each containing a clause providing for arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). The parties also entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (“JVA”). A dispute arose and Guang Dong initiated arbitration. ACI did not participate in the arbitral proceedings. An award was rendered in favor of Guang Dong, which sought confirmation of the award by a summary judgment before the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, pursuant to the NYC. ACI opposed confirmation, arguing, inter alia, that: (i) it was not accorded proper notice of the arbitration proceedings; (ii) the award was based on matters outside the arbitration agreement; (iii) enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy; and (iv) there was no valid agreement to arbitrate as no contractual relationship existed between the parties. The District Court denied confirmation via summary judgment. It found that although Guang Dong had provided, in accordance with Article IV NYC, a certified copy of the award, its official translation and the fourteen sales contracts containing the arbitration clauses, it had not provided a certified copy of the JVA and thus had failed to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement under the JVA as per Article IV NYC. The Court therefore found that it lacked jurisdiction to confirm the portion of the arbitration award dealing with disputes arising out of the JVA. The Court further decided that it had jurisdiction to determine the question of existence of the arbitration agreement, because the parties had not provided for the arbitrators to determine the question of arbitrability. The Court did not grant summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact, as Guang Dong had relied on the signed sales contracts while ACI relied on an affidavit attesting that these contracts were “mere confirmations of orders placed through [an] intermediary”. With respect to ACI’s argument that it was not accorded proper notice of the arbitration proceedings under Article V(1)(b) NYC, the Court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ACI received adequate notice because, although Guang Dong produced documentation of notices regarding the date of the oral hearing and the formation of the arbitral tribunal, it did not produce a notice informing ACI of the application for arbitration and requesting ACI to select an arbitrator and submit its defense. After so finding, the Court also declined Guang Dong's request to compel arbitration under Article II(3) NYC because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the JVA was valid and, if it was valid, whether it contained an arbitration agreement. The Court, thus, denied the request to compel arbitration on summary judgment, finding that there was no arbitration agreement in writing under Article II(2) NYC. |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
