By Russ Bleemer
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning declined to hear the international arbitration case of Big Port Service DMCC v. China Shipping Container Lines, No. 20-128.
The issue in the case was the standard for issuing an injunction related to arbitration–specifically, “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in recognizing a cause of action for a party seeking to avoid arbitration and in concluding that courts have remedial power — untethered to any federal statute and unconstrained by the Supreme Court’s precedents governing the grant of injunctive relief — to issue injunctions against arbitration.”
The Second Circuit’s March 5 unpublished summary order (available at https://bit.ly/3lD1IpA) stands. It affirmed a U.S. District Court order barring U.S. arbitration in the case, deferring instead to the Singapore High Court which had determined that there was no agreement to arbitrate, according to court decisions and papers filed in the case.
The case is six years old. While Big Port took the matter to the nation’s top Court, the parties continued to litigate the costs incurred while the U.S. actions were stayed and the case proceeded in Singapore.
China Shipping’s request for attorneys fees went to a report and recommendation by a federal judge, which was adopted in August by another New York Southern District federal court judge. China Shipping sought more than $45,000 in attorneys fees against Big Port, but was awarded just $43.20 in copying and other administrative fees by the report, and the case. See China Shipping Container Lines Co. v. Big Port Service DMCC, 15 Civ. 2006 (AT) (DF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2020) (available at https://bit.ly/36A2Jsi).
The Supreme Court’s Big Port case page, with the cert petition and briefs in the case, is available at https://bit.ly/36yOfJ2.
* * *
The author edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation for CPR.