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.

Tube City IMS, LLC v. Anza Capital Partners, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 11, 2014

TUBE CITY IMS, LLC, Petitioner,
v.
ANZA CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Respondent

For Tube City IMS, LLC, Petitioner: Justin J. Gunnell, Justin M. Sher, Sher Tremonte LLP, New York, NY.

Page 487

OPINION & ORDER

Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge.

On March 14, 2014, plaintiff Tube City IMS, LLC (" Tube City" ) commenced this action, petitioning the Court pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (" FAA" ), 9 U.S.C. § 9, to confirm the February 19, 2014 arbitration award (" Award" ) issued against respondent Anza Capital Partners, LLC (" Anza" ). Dkt. 2 (" Petition" ). On April 8, 2014, the Court directed Anza to file its opposition by April 23, 2014. Dkt. 4. As of this date, Anza has not opposed Tube City's petition.

For the reasons that follow, Tube City's petition to confirm the Award is granted.

Page 488

I. Background[1]

On March 9, 2010, Tube City and Anza agreed to enter into a contract for the sale and purchase of certain scrap metal goods. Petition Ex. A (" Agreement" ). Under the Agreement, Tube City purchased the goods from Anza, who then shipped them to Taiwan from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Petition ¶ 12. In April 2010, Anza provided Tube City with three sales invoices, totaling $90,703.94. Id. ¶ 13. In May 2010, Tube City paid Anza $90,703.94. Id. ¶ 14. In June 2010, Tube City inadvertently paid Anza another $90,703.94. Id. ¶ 15. Tube City attempted to recover the duplicate payment from Anza, but was unsuccessful. Id. ¶ 16.

Article 13 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, stating that any unresolved disputes between the parties " shall be submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce in New York." See Agreement at 4. The clause further states that the " losing party will pay the arbitration fee" and that the " award of arbitration shall be final and binding on both parties." Id.

On October 5, 2012, Tube City filed a request for arbitration against Anza, seeking to recover $90,703.94 plus costs and fees. Petition Ex. B. On November 14, 2012, Anza filed an answer. Id. On August 1, 2013, an arbitration hearing was held in Manhattan, New York before a tribunal consisting of a single arbitrator, Emma Lindsay, Esq. of the law firm, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Petition ¶ ¶ 20-21. Both Tube City and Anza appeared and participated before the arbitration tribunal. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Agreement, the tribunal applied " the laws of New York State . . . interpreted in accordance with the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)[.]" Agreement at 4.

On February 19, 2014, the tribunal issued its Award. See Petition Ex. B (" Award" ). The tribunal found that Tube City's June 2010 payment to Anza in the amount of $90,703.94 was an overpayment on invoices that had already been paid by Tube City; accordingly, it ordered Anza to pay Tube City that amount " forthwith upon notification of this award." Id. at 22-23. The Award also ordered Anza to pay " [t]he costs of the arbitration fixed by the ICC Court in the sum of $50,000.00," as well as Tube City's " reasonable legal and other costs in the sum of $87,022.00." Id. In total, Tube City was awarded $227,725.94. Id.

To date, Anza has not paid the Award. Petition ¶ 27. On March 14, 2014, Tube City filed its petition to confirm the Award. Dkt. 2. That petition remains unopposed.

II. Discussion

The FAA provides a " streamlined" process for a party seeking a " judicial decree confirming an award, an order vacating it, or an order modifying or correcting it." Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.., 552 U.S. 576, 582, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). " Normally, confirmation of an arbitration award is a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court, and the court must grant the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected." D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 110 (2d Cir. 2006). But " [a]rbitration awards are not self-enforcing." Hoeft v. MVL Grp., ...


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.