Harren & Partner Ship Management de Mexico S.A.P.I. v. American Bureau of…
Harren & Partner Ship Management de Mexico S.A.P.I. v. American Bureau of Shipping
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-05361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Harren & Partner v. Typhoon Offshore, Judge Schofield ordered supplemental briefs on whether arbitrability belongs to a court or arbitrator and whether arbitration should be compelled.
The petitioners and respondents in the case, including the parties involved in the pending request to compel arbitration and the petitioners’ permanent-injunction motion.
What happened
In Harren & Partner Ship Management de Mexico S.A.P.I. v. Typhoon Offshore S.A.P.I. de CV, et al., the parties had briefed the petitioners’ request for a permanent injunction, while a motion to compel arbitration remained pending. The dispute involved a possible arbitration clause incorporated into a 2014 fee quote.
The court ordered the petitioners and respondents to file separate three-page supplemental letters by March 25, 2022. The letters had to address whether a court or an arbitrator should decide if the dispute could be arbitrated and, if an arbitration agreement existed, whether the dispute connected to a Texas action involved services covered by the fee quote.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order on March 17, 2022. The order required additional briefing and did not state that arbitration was compelled, that the injunction was granted or denied, or that the court had resolved the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Harren & Partner Ship Management de Mexico S.A.P.I. v. American Bureau of… · No. 1:21-cv-05361
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
The petitioners’ motion for a permanent injunction had been fully briefed. A respondent’s motion to compel arbitration was still pending. The court noted that, when an arbitration agreement exists, the agreement must be examined to determine whether the question of arbitrability—whether a particular dispute must be submitted to arbitration—is decided by the court or by the arbitrator.
At least one purported arbitration clause in the dispute incorporated the rules of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators. The parties’ existing briefs did not address whether those incorporated rules assigned arbitrability to a court or an arbitrator.
Order
The court ordered the petitioners and respondents to file separate, three-page, single-spaced supplemental letter briefs by March 25, 2022. Each brief had to address two issues:
1. If the court found an arbitration agreement based on the terms incorporated into the November 11, 2014, fee quote signed by Mr. Dammann, whether those terms provided that a court or an arbitrator would decide arbitrability. 2. If the court found that an arbitration agreement existed and could decide arbitrability, whether the agreement was limited to services provided in connection with the November 14, 2014, fee quote, and whether the parties’ dispute connected to the Texas action related to services provided under that fee quote such that arbitration should be compelled.
The order did not grant or deny the permanent-injunction motion or the motion to compel arbitration. It required supplemental briefing on issues relevant to the pending arbitration motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.