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.

Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v. Westcode, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 29, 2017

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
WESTCODE, INC., Defendant. WESTCODE, INC., Counter Claimant,
v.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Counter Defendant.

          HANCOCK ESTABROOK LLP, Attorneys for Defendant/Counter Claimant

          PHILLIPS, CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, Attorneys for Defendant/Counter Claimant

          JENNER, BLOCK LAW FIRM, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant

          JENNER, BLOCK LAW FIRM, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant

          JOHN G. POWERS, ESQ., ASHLEY D. HAYES, ESQ., PATRICK C. CAMPBELL, JR., ESQ., CATHERINE L. STEEGE, ESQ., JOEL T. PELZ, ESQ., TERRENCE J. TRAUX, ESQ., WILLIAM C. PERICAK, ESQ.,

          MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

          Mae A. D'Agosting U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On April 27, 2015, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation ("Mitsubishi") commenced the instant action, Case No. 15-cv-505 (the "MOU Action"), in this Court asserting a breach of contract claim against Westcode, Inc. ("Westcode"). See Dkt. No. 1.[1] On May 5, 2015, Westcode commenced Case No. 15-cv-1474 (the "JVA Action") in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Pennsylvania Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7351 et seq. See 15-cv-1474, Dkt. No. 1 at 12-19. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated July 11, 2016 (the "Prior Decision"), this Court denied Mitsubishi's motion to compel arbitration. See Dkt. No. 74. On July 25, 2016, Mitsubishi filed a motion for reconsideration of the Prior Decision. See Dkt. No. 76. Westcode opposes that motion. See Dkt. No. 78.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the background of this case, as outlined in the Prior Decision.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. The Parties' Contentions

         Mitsubishi makes several arguments as to why the Court should reconsider the Prior Decision. First, Mitsubishi claims that the Court misapplied the law of wavier when it found that Mitsubishi waived its right to enforce arbitration provisions against Westcode. See Dkt. No. 76-1 at 4. Specifically, Mitsubishi argues that it did not intentionally waive its right to arbitrate claims arising from the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") because Mitsubishi did not know that the MOU was subject to the arbitration provisions in the Joint Venture Agreements ("JVAs"). See Id. at 5. Mitsubishi claims that its conduct in the MOU Action was consistent with its "well-founded belief" that any claims arising out of the MOU were non-arbitrable. See Id. at 6. Mitsubishi further argues that the Court should not have considered the actions that Mitsubishi took to litigate its MOU claims when finding that Mitsubishi's conduct constituted waiver. See Id. at 8.

         Second, Mitsubishi argues that Westcode has not suffered any prejudice as a result of Mitsubishi's pursuit of litigation in the MOU Action. See Id. at 10. Mitsubishi claims that any information disclosed by Westcode in discovery would have been disclosed in an arbitration proceeding as well. See Id. at 12. Mitsubishi concedes that Westcode had to disclose approximately 650 pages of documents, but Mitsubishi claims that it already had at least 520 of these pages in its possession. See Id. Mitsubishi further claims that the vast majority of these documents are "simply the underlying agreements and ...


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.