Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARINE TRADING LTD. v. NAVIERA COMERCIAL NAYLAMP S

March 20, 1995

In the Matter of the Arbitration between MARINE TRADING LIMITED, Petitioner, -against- NAVIERA COMERCIAL NAYLAMP S.A., Respondent.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS A. KAPLAN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 KAPLAN, District Judge.

 Petitioner, a Bahamian corporation, moves to confirm an arbitration award rendered on October 31, 1994 against respondent, a Peruvian corporation. The pertinent documents were mailed to respondent in Peru, but there is no proof of receipt. Respondent failed to appear. The issue is whether the petition should be granted. *fn1"

 Discussion

 Subject Matter Jurisdiction

 Petitioner moves to confirm the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (the "Arbitration Act"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The Arbitration Act does not constitute an independent grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts. Therefore, a party seeking remedies under the Arbitration Act in a federal court must establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. General Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948, 102 S. Ct. 1449, 71 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1982); TM Mktg. v. Art & Antiques Assoc., 803 F. Supp. 994, 997-98 (D.N.J. 1992); Dorn v. Dorn's Transp., Inc., 562 F. Supp. 822, 824 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

 The basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case is admiralty jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The case arises under a charter party agreement which, it is well established, is a maritime contract that brings the dispute within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States Courts. Fednav, Ltd. v. Isoramar, S.A., 925 F.2d 599, 601 (2d Cir. 1991).

 There is an alternate basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The legislation implementing the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (the "Convention"), grants federal question jurisdiction over actions and proceedings falling under the Convention. 9 U.S.C. § 203. A party to an arbitration subject to the Convention, as this one was, may seek to confirm the award against any other party to the arbitration in a federal court of proper venue. *fn2" Id. § 207. Accordingly, we have subject matter jurisdiction under Chapter 2 of the Arbitration Act.

 Personal Jurisdiction and Service

 The next issue before the Court is whether the mailing of the petition to confirm was sufficient to acquire in personam jurisdiction over the respondent.

 The service attempted by petitioner consisted of sending the petition to confirm the arbitration award by registered mail, return receipt requested, to respondent's office in Lima, Peru. Although petitioner has submitted to the Court the Southern District of New York Clerk's Certificate of Mailing, petitioner has not submitted a receipt signed by respondent or any other evidence of delivery.

 In ordinary circumstances, 9 U.S.C. § 9 governs the service of petitions to confirm arbitration awards. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act provides in relevant part:

 
"If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, . . . service [of the notice of the application to confirm] shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident then the notice of application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court." (Emphasis added.)

 However, the statute does not provide for service of the respondent at any location that does not lie within a judicial district of the United States. Therefore, the mailing of the petition to respondent's office outside of the United States was not appropriate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.