Loeb & Loeb LLP v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

Background

Loeb & Loeb LLP brought a petition under the Federal Arbitration Act and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards to confirm an arbitration award against Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. Hangzhou Chic is described as a Chinese-based company that owns or controls patents related to hoverboards. Unicorn is described as a California company that licenses those patents and distributes hoverboard products.

The respondents engaged Loeb as legal counsel in August 2020 under a retainer agreement requiring payment for hourly legal services and containing an arbitration provision. Loeb represented the respondents from August 2020 through June 2022 in two patent enforcement actions and related appeals. After the respondents failed to pay part of Loeb’s fees, Loeb filed an arbitration demand with JAMS on July 27, 2022.

After arbitration proceedings that included a three-day hearing and post-hearing briefing, the arbitrator issued an award on September 25, 2023. The award found the respondents jointly and severally liable for $3,057,294.79 in damages, $330,941.77 in pre-judgment interest, $44,298.97 in arbitration expenses, and post-judgment interest accruing at $846.38 per day.

Confirmation of the Arbitration Award

The court explained that an arbitration award is not automatically enforceable and generally must be converted into a court judgment. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must confirm an award unless it has been vacated, modified, or corrected on one of the limited statutory grounds.

The court treated the unopposed petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. It found that Loeb showed there was no genuine dispute of material fact. The court stated that it was undisputed that the respondents had violated the retainer agreement by failing to pay for services and that the dispute was within the arbitrator’s authority.

The court found that the damages and arbitration expenses were supported by billing invoices and other documentation, and that the calculations were not disputed. It also found no evidence of corruption, fraud, improper conduct, partiality, misconduct, an excess of the arbitrator’s authority, or disregard of the law. The court therefore GRANTED Loeb’s petition and confirmed the arbitration award.

Motions to Seal

Loeb separately asked the court to seal the award and several arbitration hearing transcripts. The court explained that documents supporting a petition to confirm an arbitration award are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A confidentiality agreement alone does not overcome that presumption.

The court recognized that the materials appeared to contain information potentially protected by attorney-client privilege or related to Loeb’s confidential business interests. But Loeb did not explain why redacting that material from public versions, rather than sealing the exhibits in full, would not adequately protect those interests. The court therefore DENIED the sealing motions without prejudice to renewal with a revised motion consistent with the order.

Disposition

Judge Torres directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Loeb and jointly and severally against the respondents for the amounts awarded, including $846.38 in post-judgment interest per day until the judgment is fully satisfied. The court terminated the sealing motions and closed the case. The parties were permitted to propose redactions by May 3, 2024; otherwise, the court stated that it might order the exhibits filed publicly without redactions.