District Court Was Right, But For The Wrong Reasons.
The Court of Appeals decided three issues in Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A., No. 23-55123 (9th Cir. 2/5/24) (M. Smith, Lee, Vandyke): subject matter jurisdiction, service, and comity. The underlying dispute, concerning rights under a Distribution and License Agreement, resulted in an arbitration award in favor of Voltage Pictures, which the district court had confirmed.
The district court held that it had jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award because there was diversity between US-based Voltage Pictures and Gussi. While the Federal Arbitration Act enables federal courts to confirm arbitration awards, there must still be an independent basis for jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals, doubtful that complete diversity had been established, rejected diversity as the district court's basis for accepting jurisdiction. However, 9 U.S.C. 203 "vests federal district courts with subject matter jurisdiction over motions seeking to confirm non-domestic arbitral awards." Gussi was a non-domestic party, and that provide the independent basis for jurisdiction.
Second, the district court erred in finding that California law provided the basis for service for mail on the foreign entity. However, Judge Smith found another way find that service by mail on Gussi's attorney was sufficient under the circumstances. Gussi did not reside in the Central District of California, and was not available for service in any other federal district in the US. Therefore, the FAA provisions, 9 USC § 9, governing service of residents of the district or elsewhere in the US, simply did not apply to the serving someone unavailable in the US. Relying on 9 USC § 61, Judge Smith explained that a summons was not required to confirm an arbitration award, only an application, and that notice of an application could be accomplished by the same means as providing notice of a motion: service on the party's attorney.
Third, the district court did not abuse authority by refusing to extend comity to an order from a Mexican court to enjoin the confirmation of the arbitration award. Gussi failed to properly authenticate the foreign order.
COMMENT. As Judge Smith observed, "We may affirm a district court’s decision 'on any ground supported by the record even if not explicitly relied upon by the district court.' Johnson v. Barr, 79 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2023)." And that's what happened here.
1"Any application to the court hereunder shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein expressly provided."
Comments