United States / 19 March 2012 / United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas Houston Division / Steve Didmon v. Frontier Drilling (USA), INC., et al. / H–11–2051
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas Houston Division |
| Date | 19 March 2012 |
| Parties | Steve Didmon v. Frontier Drilling (USA), INC., et al. |
| Case number | H–11–2051 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(2) | II(3) |
| Source |
online: PACER |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Plaintiff, Steve Didmon (“Didmon”), filed a personal-injury lawsuit against his employers, the Defendants, Frontier Drilling (USA), Inc., et al. (collectively, “Frontier”), in a Texas state court. Didmon had entered into an Employment Agreement with FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus) Ltd. (“Frontier Cyprus”), which was governed by Cypriot law, and a separate Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement (“ADR Agreement”), which Frontier Cyprus had never actually signed. After Didmon filed suit, Frontier removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the ADR Agreement and Section 205 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which grants a federal district court removal jurisdiction over cases it determines relate to an arbitration agreement governed by the NYC. Frontier moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay litigation in favour of arbitration. Didmon moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the District Court did not have removal jurisdiction over the case because the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the NYC. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas remanded the case back to state court, holding that the parties had not entered into a signed agreement to arbitrate within the terms of the NYC. It held that for the NYC to govern an arbitration agreement, the agreement must (i) be signed and in writing; (ii) provide for arbitration in a territory that is a signatory to the Convention; (iii) arise out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered commercial; and (iv) involve a party who is not a U.S. citizen. The Court held that there was no valid arbitration agreement under the NYC because Frontier Cyprus had not signed the ADR Agreement. According to the Court, the fact that the ADR Agreement appeared on Frontier Cyprus’s letterhead was not synonymous with it being signed by Frontier Cyprus. Because the Employment Agreement required signatures by both parties for effective amendment, and Frontier Cyprus had not signed the ADR Agreement, the Court held that the Employment Agreement had not been validly amended to include the ADR Agreement and its arbitration clause. Having concluded that there was no signed written agreement to arbitrate under the NYC, or any other basis for federal jurisdiction over the case, the Court remanded back to state court. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
