Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc., et al.

Filing 131

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/3/12: The Clerk of the Court is instructed to reopen this case and lift the stay. The arbitrator's March 5, 2012 "Opinion and Award," [124-2], is confirmed and the Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment. Status Conference set for 9/4/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13

----oo0oo----

14
15
16
17
18
19

NO. CIV. 2:09-2304 WBS KJN

MOHIT RANDHAWA aka HARPAL
SINGH; SHANNON CALLNET PVT
LTD,

ORDER RE: MOTION TO VACATE
STAY, CONFIRM ARBITRATION
AWARD, AND ENTER FINAL
JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.
SKYLUX INC., INTERACTIVE
INTELLIGENCE, INC., MUJEEB
PUZHAKKARAILLATH, SKYLUX
TELELINK PVT LTD; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
/

20
----oo0oo---21
22

Plaintiffs Mohit Randhawa aka Harpal Singh and Shannon

23

Callnet Pvt. Ltd. (“Shannon Callnet”) filed this action against

24

defendants Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (“Interactive”),

25

Skylux, Inc., Mujeeb Puzhakkaraillath, and Skylux Telelink Pvt.

26

Ltd. (the latter three collectively “Skylux defendants”),

27

alleging state law claims arising from contracts for software and

28

an India-based calling center.

Only Shannon Callnet has claims
1

1

against Interactive, and the court previously found that those

2

claims were subject to arbitration.

3

October 18, 2010, the court stayed all claims against Interactive

4

because they were subject to arbitration and all claims against

5

the Skylux defendants even though those claims were not subject

6

to arbitration.

7

(Docket Nos. 88, 102.)

On

(Docket No. 102.)

In March 2011, Shannon Callnet commenced arbitration,

8

(Docket No. 112 at 2:14-17), and the arbitrator issued a decision

9

on March 5, 2012.

In his decision, the arbitrator found in favor

10

of Interactive on all of Shannon Callnet’s claims against it and

11

determined that Shannon Callnet was responsible for the costs of

12

the arbitration, including the $1,1000.00 in fees Interactive had

13

already paid.

14

Interactive now moves for an order vacating the stay of this

15

case, confirming the arbitration award issued on March 5, 2012,

16

and entering judgment in favor of Interactive on all claims by

17

Shannon Callnet.

18

defendants oppose Interactive’s motion.

19
20
21
22
23
24

(Lindman Decl. Ex. A (Docket No. 124-2).)

Neither Shannon Callnet nor the remaining

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act,
If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a
judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award
made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the
court, then at any time within one year after the award
is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the
court so specified for an order confirming the award, and
thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the
award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in
sections 10 and 11 of this title.

25

9. U.S.C. § 9.

Here, the licensing agreement between the parties

26

provides that “[j]udgment upon the arbitral award may be entered

27

into any court that has jurisdiction thereof.”

28

Ex. D, Art. 8.10.4 (Docket No. 124-1).)
2

(Lindman Decl.

The Supreme Court has

1

held that “the court with the power to stay the action under § 3

2

has the further power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award.”

3

Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Const. Co., 529 U.S. 193,

4

202 (2000).

5

‘a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final

6

arbitration award a judgment of the court,’ and the court ‘must

7

grant’ the award ‘unless the award is vacated, modified, or

8

corrected.’”

9

110 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750

“Normally, confirmation of an arbitration award is

D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95,

10

F.2d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 1984) and 9 U.S.C. § 9).

11

therefore grant Interactive’s unopposed motion to confirm the

12

arbitrator’s award and enter judgment in its favor.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

13
14
15
16

The court will

(1)

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to reopen this

case and lift the stay;
(2)

The arbitrator’s March 5, 2012 “Opinion and Award,”

17

(Docket No. 124-2), is confirmed and the Clerk of the Court is

18

instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Interactive

19

Intelligence, Inc. on all claims against it by plaintiff Shannon

20

Callnet Pvt. Ltd.;

21

(3)

Interactive shall file a Bill of Costs pursuant to

22

Eastern District Local Rule 292 for all costs it is seeking,

23

including the $1,100.00 in fees paid to the arbitrator; and

24

(4)

This case is set for a Status Conference at 2:00 p.m.

25

on September 4, 2012, in Courtroom No. 5, to address the

26

remaining claims against the Skylux defendants.

27

parties shall file a joint status report suggesting a schedule

28

for further proceedings no later than August 20, 2012.
3

The remaining

1

DATED: August 3, 2012

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4