Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C. v. Najafi et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 1 Plaintiff Injazat Technology Fund, B.S.C.'s petition for confirmation of arbitral award. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall enter final judgment in favor of Injazat and against Michael Cummiskey. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/17/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

INJAZAT TECHNOLOGY FUND
B.S.C.,

2:11-CV-1355 JCM (GWF)

9
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

HAMID NAJAFI, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is plaintiff Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C.’s petition to

17

confirm a foreign arbitration award. (Doc. #1). Defendant Michael Cummiskey has filed an

18

opposition to the petition. (Doc. #13). Defendant Hamid Najafi has not filed an opposition.

19

Injazat has replied to Cummiskey’s opposition. (Doc. #17).

20

I. Background

21

On July 25, 2011, an arbitrator of the International Court of Arbitration entered an award

22

in favor of Injazat and against the defendants in this case based on Injazat’s claims of intentional

23

misrepresentation and breach of contract related certain agreements entered into by Injazat and

24

the defendants. The arbitrator awarded Injazat $3,426,553.45. The award was entered in

25

London, England. Injazat now moves this court to enforce the arbitration award pursuant to the

26

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the convention”).

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

II. Discussion
England and the United States are both signatories of the convention.1 The convention is

2
3

codified in 9 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq., which applies to an “arbitral award arising out of a legal

4

relationship . . . which is considered as commercial” and was not entered into entirely between

5

United States citizens. 9 U.S.C. § 202. “[A]ny party to the arbitration may apply to any court

6

having jurisdiction . . . for an order confirming the award as against any other party to the

7

arbitration.” 9 U.S.C. § 207; see also Seung Woo Lee v. Imaging3, Inc., 283 Fed. Appx. 490, 492

8

(9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that federal law enables the prevailing party in a recognized foreign

9

arbitration proceeding to seek confirmation of the award by a United States court). Pursuant to 9

10

U.S.C. § 203, this court has original jurisdiction over actions or proceedings that fall under the

11

convention. Courts “shall confirm [arbitration] award[s]” unless one of the defenses enumerated

12

in the statute preclude confirmation. 9 U.S.C. § 207.

13

Defendant Cummiskey has failed to allege that any of the enumerated defenses apply.

14

Rather, he has attacked the underlying factual and legal bases upon which the award was granted.

15

This court, however, “shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or

16

deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention” exist. See

17

9 U.S.C. § 207. Because Mr. Cummiskey has failed to persuade this court that an enumerated

18

defense precludes confirmation of the award, it must be confirmed.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that plaintiff Injazat

21

Technology Fund B.S.C.’s petition for confirmation of arbitral award (doc. #1) be, and the same

22

hereby is, GRANTED.

23

...

24

...

25
26
1

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

See UNCITRAL, 1958 – Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NY
Convention_status.html.
-2-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the clerk of the court
shall enter final judgment in favor of Injazat and against Michael Cummiskey.
DATED October 17, 2011.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-