American Furukawa, Inc. v. HOSSAIN
Filing
97
OPINION and ORDER Denying Defendant's 79 MOTION to Dismiss and Defer to Arbitration. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AMERICAN FURUKAWA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-cv-13633
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
ISTHIHAR HOSSAIN and HT WIRE & CABLE
AMERICAS, LLC,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFER TO
ARBITRATION [79]
I. INTRODUCTION
American Furukawa, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on September 19, 2014
against Isthihar Hossain. See Dkt. No. 1. On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint adding HT Wire & Cable Americas, LLC as a new party. See Dkt. No. 65. Before the
Court now is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Defer to Arbitration. See Dkt. No. 79. This
matter is fully briefed. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion will be DENIED.
The matter is fully briefed. After reviewing the briefing, the Court concludes that oral
argument will not aid in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the Court will resolve the
Motion on the briefs as submitted. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2).
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 19, 2014, against the Defendant. See Dkt.
No. 1. As described below, the two parties have been and remain engaged in intense litigation
since that time. Over a year later, on October 5, 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case
-1-
and requested it be deferred to arbitration. See Dkt. No. 79. The Defendants attached an exhibit
that purports to be a copy of a Joint Venture Agreement made between Heibei Huatong Wires &
Cables Group Co. Ltd (“Huatong”), Furukawa Electric Industrial Cable Co. Ltd. (“FEIC”), and
Shenyang Furukawa Cable Co. Ltd. (“SFC”). See Dkt. No. 79-1, at 4 (Pg. ID No. 1359). The
alleged agreement states:
57. Settlement of the Conflict:
1. Any disputes caused by this contract or relating to this contract shall be
resolved by the friendly discussion.
2. If the dispute can’t be resolved by the discussion above, and the any
effective resolution is not found, the arbitration location and facility are
applied as follows:
(1) When the arbitration is raised against Party A, the arbitration
shall be performed at CIETAC (China International Economic
and Trade Arbitration Commission) in Beijing China in
accordance with the rules in the commission.
...
Id. at 6 (Pg. ID No. 1361).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he FAA provides for stays of proceedings in federal district courts when an issue in
the proceeding is referable to arbitration, and for orders compelling arbitration when one party
has failed or refused to comply with an arbitration agreement.” E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc.,
534 U.S. 279, 289 (2002); see also Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985)
(“[T]he Act leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates
that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an
arbitration agreement has been signed.”). However, “[b]efore compelling an unwilling party to
arbitrate, the court must engage in a limited review to determine whether the dispute is
-2-
arbitrable; meaning that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and that the
specific dispute falls within the substantive scope of that agreement.” Javitch v. First Union Sec.,
Inc., 315 F.3d 619, 624 (6th Cir. 2003).
IV. DISCUSSION
The parties dispute whether or not the claims should go to arbitration. The Court is not
convinced that the documents provided by the Defendants warrant a deferral to arbitration.
However, even assuming, without holding, that the Court found the evidence sufficient, the
Motion would still fail because the Defendants have waived the right to enforce any arbitration
agreement.
“An agreement to arbitrate may be waived by the actions of a party which are completely
inconsistent with any reliance thereon.” Germany v. River Terminal Ry. Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547
(6th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). Typically, there is a strong presumption against the waiver of an
arbitration right. MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Lauricia, 268 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a
waiver of the right to arbitration is “not to be lightly inferred). Accordingly, “a party waives an
agreement to arbitrate by engaging in two courses of conduct: (1) taking actions that are
completely inconsistent with any reliance on an arbitration agreement; and (2) “delaying its
assertion to such an extent that the opposing party incurs actual prejudice.” Hurley v. Deutsche
Bank Trust Co., Americas, 610 F.3d 334, 338 (6th Cir. 2010); see also JPD, Inc. v. Chronimed
Holdings, Inc., 539 F.3d 388, 393 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Though we have declined to sharply define
what conduct suffices, it typically involves a defendant’s failure to timely invoke arbitration after
being sued or its interference with a plaintiff’s pre-litigation efforts to arbitrate.”).
In three recent cases, the Sixth Circuit has held that each defendant waived its right to
arbitrate by failing to assert that right in a timely fashion and instead participating in litigation-
-3-
related activities. In General Star National Insurance Co. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat,
the Sixth Circuit held that the defendant waived its right to arbitrate after waiting 17 months
before attempting to enforce the arbitration clause. 289 F.3d 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2002).
In O.J. Distributing, Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., the Sixth Circuit held that the
defendant waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in negotiations with the plaintiff for
approximately 15 months-while at the same time denying the existence of the agreement which
contained the arbitration provision-before asserting its right to arbitrate. 340 F.3d 345, 357 (6th
Cir. 2003).
In Manasher v. NECC Telecom, the Sixth Circuit found waiver where a defendant failed
to “plead arbitration as an affirmative defense and . . . actively participat[ed] in litigation for
almost a year without asserting that it had a right to arbitration.” 310 F. App’x 804, 806 (6th Cir.
2009).
Here, the complaint was filed in September 19, 2014. See Dkt. No. 1. The Defendants
filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on October 1, 2014. On February 23, 2015, the
Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
12(c). See Dkt. No. 30. Discovery ended on September 30, 2015. See Dkt. No. 40. “The parties
have filed 31 sets of pleadings, and this Court has issued multiple orders. The parties have
participated in two settlement conferences, one with the Magistrate Judge, and the second with a
private facilitator.” Dkt. 89 at 8–9 (Pg. ID No. 1699–1700). Defendants raised arbitration as an
issue for the first time on September 15, 2015 in a Reply Brief litigating a Motion to Reconsider
the Court’s decision to Grant the Plaintiff permission to Amend the Complaint. See Dkt. No. 64
at 3 (Pg. ID No. 1121). This Motion was not filed until October 5, 2015. See Dkt. No. 79.
-4-
As in Manasher, the Defendants in this case did not raise an arbitration agreement as an
affirmative defense, and have been actively engaged in litigation for over a year. Not only have
the Defendants behaved in a way that is completely inconsistent with any reliance on an
arbitration agreement, but their 12-month delay has caused prejudice to the Plaintiff. See Dkt.
No. 89 at 9 (Pg. ID No. 1700) (“Per Hossain’s request, Plaintiff has produced more than 2500
pages of documents.”); see also Hurley, 610 F.3d at 340 (Finding the process of discovery,
motion practice and incurring litigation costs to be “actual prejudice.”). Accordingly, the right to
arbitrate is waived and the Motion fails.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2015
Detroit, MI
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record l on
November 19, 2015. Service was done electronically and by U S Postal Mail as required.
s/Teresa A. McGovern
Case Manager Generalist
-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?