Translarity, Inc. v. Grand Junction Semiconductor Pte. Ltd.

Background

Translarity filed a document titled a “motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration.” The court construed it as a motion seeking certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Translarity stated that it was not asking the court to reconsider its October 29, 2024 order. That earlier order granted in part the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the remaining proceedings.

The earlier order held that the arbitrability of Translarity’s claims—that is, whether the claims belonged in arbitration—was a question for the arbitrator rather than the court. The court relied on precedent concerning sophisticated parties to commercial contracts and noted that the contract incorporated the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s arbitration rules.

Legal standard

Section 1292(b) permits a district court to certify a nonfinal order for possible immediate appellate review when three requirements are met: a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and a determination that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court stated that this procedure is intended for exceptional situations in which an appeal would avoid prolonged and expensive litigation.

Parties’ positions

Translarity argued that two cases created substantial grounds for disagreement with the court’s earlier ruling. The defendants opposed the motion and argued, among other things, that there was no substantial disagreement about the substance of that ruling.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Translarity’s reliance on Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc., explaining that the case involved a plaintiff who was not a sophisticated party and therefore did not address the same situation. The court also concluded that Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc. did not create a substantial disagreement with the earlier ruling. Jackson did not involve an arbitration agreement between two sophisticated parties. It also involved a dispute over which of two arbitration agreements applied, and the parties in that case agreed that the court or arbitrator would decide arbitrability depending on which agreement governed.

The court therefore concluded that Jackson did not address the issue presented in the earlier Translarity order and did not conflict with the precedent on which that order relied.

Ruling

The court denied Translarity’s motion seeking certification for an interlocutory appeal. This order addressed whether the earlier order should be certified for immediate appellate review; it did not reconsider the earlier arbitration ruling.