Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 7, 2020

Three Brothers Trading, LLC v. Generex Biotechnology Corp.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:18-cv-11585
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ArbitrationFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Three Brothers Trading v. Generex Biotechnology, Judge Failla held the arbitrator could consider attorneys’ fees under the parties’ American Arbitration Association rules.

Who this affects

Three Brothers Trading, LLC, Generex Biotechnology Corp., and the arbitrator in their arbitration.

What happened

Three Brothers Trading, LLC v. Generex Biotechnology Corp. concerned whether the arbitrator could consider attorneys’ fees at an upcoming arbitration hearing.

The court held that the arbitrator’s authority under the parties’ American Arbitration Association rules was not limited by the court’s earlier remand. The arbitrator could therefore consider awarding attorneys’ fees.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla also noted that the court had already rejected Generex’s prevailing-party argument and had remanded the case only to determine the damages to which AEXG was entitled as the prevailing party.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Three Brothers Trading, LLC v. Generex Biotechnology Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-11585
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Aug. 7, 2020

Background

The court received letters from the parties about whether the arbitrator could consider attorneys’ fees at an arbitration hearing scheduled to begin on September 9, 2020. The dispute followed the court’s April 24, 2020 opinion and order remanding the matter.

Ruling

The court concluded that the arbitrator continued to have the authority granted under the arbitration rules the parties selected, which were the American Arbitration Association’s rules. The court stated that the scope of its remand did not change the arbitrator’s authority to award attorneys’ fees under American Arbitration Association Commercial Rules 47(b) and 47(d)(ii).

The court also stated that it had already rejected Generex’s “prevailing party” argument. It reiterated that the case had been remanded only to determine the extent of damages to which AEXG was entitled as the prevailing party. The order therefore allowed the arbitrator to consider attorneys’ fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.