Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. CH Bus Sales LLC
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/9/2018. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TEMSA ULASIM ARACLARI SANA YI
VE TICARET A.S. ,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
V.
CH BUS SALES, LLC,
Defendant.
Civ. No . 18-698-RGA
MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant CH Bus Sales, LLC
("CH Bus") has moved to enjoin an arbitration with Plaintiff Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanyi Ve
Ticaret A.S . ("Temsa") currently proceeding in New York before the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA"). (D.I. 4). For the reasons set forth below, a decision on this motion is stayed
until after the arbitrator decides the motion CH Bus simultaneously filed with the arbitrator to
dismiss the arbitration for lack of jurisdiction. (See D.I. 17 at 2; Id. at Ex. A).
I.
BACKGROUND
Temsa manufactures motorcoaches sold worldwide. (D.I. 15 at 3). On February 2, 2010,
Temsa and CH Bus entered into a Distribution Agreement, by which CH Bus became an exclusive
distributor of motorcoaches manufactured by Temsa. (D.I. 1-1 at
,r 6).
Under the Distribution
Agreement, CH Bus was required to remit payment for the motorcoaches to Temsa within ninety
days of the bill oflading. (D.I. 15-1 at§ 4.5). The Distribution Agreement also required the parties
to submit all disputes arising under the Distribution Agreement to arbitration before the AAA
1
applying the AAA' s Commercial Arbitration Rules . (D.I. 15-1 at §17.3).
Specifically, the
Distribution Agreement states in relevant part:
The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve amicably all disputes and claims
arising under this Agreement. If the parties cannot amicably settle their
differences, the parties shall submit all unresolved differences to arbitration.
Arbitration will be held in New York, New York, in accordance with the then
prevailing Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association.
(Id.) .1
The parties later entered into side-letter agreements, amendments to the Distribution
Agreement, and a Security Agreement. (See D.I. 15-2; D.I. 15-3; D.I. 15-5; D.I. 15-6). The
amendments to the Distribution Agreement did not affect the arbitration provision. (See D.I. 153). The side-letter agreements governed the sale of a specific set of motorcoaches identified therein
and further provided that all disputes "arising from or related to" the side-letter agreements shall
be resolved by the courts located in the State of Delaware. 2 (D.I. 15-2; D.I. 15-5). The Security
Agreement granted Temsa a security interest in every motorcoach Temsa sold to CH Bus in order
to secure CH Bus' s obligation under the Distribution Agreement to pay the full purchase price for
each motorcoach. (D.I. 15-6, Recitals). Like the side-letter agreements, the Security Agreement
provided that any disputes "arising from or related to" the Security Agreement shall be resolved
by the courts located in the State of Delaware. (Id. at§ 4).
The Distribution Agreement provides that New York courts would have exclusive
jurisdiction over any "equitable relief to enforce the terms of this Agreement." (D.I. 15-1 at §
17.3). It further provides that the Distribution Agreement is to be construed under New York law.
(Id. at§ 17.10).
See D.I. 15-2 (stating that the letter amends the terms of the Distribution Agreement for
"covering such sale"); D.I. 15-5 (stating that the letter amends the terms of the Distribution
Agreement "solely with respect to the Payment Terms ... for the Subject Motorcoaches and solely
for the limited Purpose described herein").
2
2
Sometime between the execution of the Distribution Agreement and now, the parties'
business relationship soured. On March 22, 2018, Temsa filed a demand for arbitration against
CH Bus with the AAA. (D.I. 15-8). The arbitration demand sets forth seven counts: (1) breach of
the Distribution Agreement, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3)
unjust enrichment, (4) promissory estoppel, (5) conversion, (6) accounting, and (7) declaratory
judgment. (Id. at
,r,r 65-91 ).
Separately, on April 9, 2018, Temsa commenced an action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery to secure its rights in the collateral in accordance with the parties'
Security Agreement. (D.I. 1-1 , Ex. A). That action was removed to this court. The complaint in
this court sets forth three counts: (1) declaratory judgment; (2) specific performance; and (3)
imposition of a constructive trust. (D.I. 1-1 , Ex. A at ,r,r 15-40).
II.
DISCUSSION
Courts, not the arbitrator, decide questions of arbitrability unless there is "clear and
unmistakable evidence" that the parties intended otherwise. AT&T Tech. , Inc. v. Commc 'ns
Workers ofAm., 475 U.S. 643 , 650 (1986); Opalinski v. Robert Half Int '!. Inc. , 761 F.3d 326, 335
(3d Cir. 2014); James & Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, 906 A.2d 76, 78 (Del. 2006).
"Virtually every circuit to have considered the issue has determined that incorporation of the AAA
arbitration rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate
arbitrability." Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, 809 F.3d 746, 763 (3d Cir.
2016) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Oracle Am. , Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G. , 724 F.3d
1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013)); Willie Gary , 906 A.2d at 78 (adopting the majority view that "where
the arbitration clause provides that the arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the rules
of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), that statement constitutes clear and unmistakable
evidence of the parties' intent to have an arbitrator determine substantive arbitrability").
3
Here, the parties provided clear and unmistakable evidence that arbitrability is to be
determined by the arbitration panel, and not the court, because the parties incorporated the AAA
rules into the arbitration provision of the Distribution Agreement, and the Distribution Agreement
serves as the basis ofTemsa's claims in the arbitration. (See D.I. 15-1 at §17.3). CH Bus argues
that the arbitration provision in the Distribution Agreement has been superseded by-and conflicts
with-amendments to the Distribution Agreement and the wholly separate Security Agreement.
This assertion does not seem entirely accurate.
First, the amendments to the Distribution
Agreement made no changes to the arbitration provision. (See D.I. 15-3). Second, the side-letter
agreements and the Security Agreement have conflicting dispute resolution provisions- because
they identify Delaware courts as the forum to resolve any disputes- but it is not clear at this stage
of the proceedings that those agreements superseded the Distribution Agreement. Third, Temsa' s
arbitration demand does discuss the March 17, 2017 side-letter agreement and the Security
Agreement, but its claims in the arbitration demand appear to rest primarily on the Distribution
Agreement. 3
The discussion in the demand of the side-letter agreement and the Security
Agreement is an entanglement that gives the court pause, but not enough to overcome the clear
and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended for the arbitrator, and not the court, to decide
in the first instance issues related to arbitrability.
3
Temsa has represented that the motorcoaches subject to the September 27, 2011 side-letter
agreement are not at issue in the arbitration. (D.I. 15 at 4).
4
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, CH Bus' Motion to Enjoin the Arbitration (D.I. 4) is stayed until
after the arbitrator decides the motion CH Bus simultaneously filed with the arbitrator to dismiss
the arbitration for lack of jurisdiction. An appropriate order will be entered.
Dated: October
_1_,2018
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?