Oakley Fertilizer Inc. v. Hagrpota for Trading & Distribution, Ltd. ( 2013 )

12-5042-cv
Oakley Fertilizer, Inc. v. Hagrpota for Trading & Distrib., Ltd.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 27th day of August, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 PETER W. Hall,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11
12
13 OAKLEY FERTILIZER INC.,
14 D/B/A OAKLEY INTERNATIONAL,
15
16 Petitioner-Appellee,
17
18 -v.- 12-5042-cv
19
20 HAGRPOTA FOR TRADING & DISTRIBUTION, LTD.,
21
22 Respondent-Appellant.
23
24
25
26 FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK F. LENNON, Lennon, Murphy &
27 Lennon, LLC, New York, NY.
28
29 FOR APPELLEE: JEFFREY S. BOXER (Matthew D. Dunn,
30 Michael K. Plumb, on the brief), Carter
31 Ledyard & Milburn, New York, NY.
32
33
1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
2 Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District
6 Court for the Southern District of New York is AFFIRMED.
7 Respondent-Appellant Hagrpota for Trading and
8 Distribution, Ltd. (“Hagrpota”) appeals from a November 16,
9 2012 Opinion and Order from the United States District Court
10 for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.) granting
11 Petitioner-Appellee Oakley Fertilizer Inc.’s (“Oakley”)
12 petition to confirm an arbitration award. We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
14 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
15 “We review a district court’s decision to confirm an
16 arbitration award de novo to the extent it turns on legal
17 questions, and we review any findings of fact for clear
18 error.” Duferco Int'l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness
19 Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir. 2003). Between
20 2007 and 2009, Hagrpota and Oakley entered into a series of
21 contracts to buy and sell fertilizer –- the parties’
22 relationship failed to flourish. In January 2009, and again
23 in August 2009, they entered into “partial resolution
24 agreements” to memorialize some of the debts that Hagrpota
2
1 agreed it owed to Oakley. After Hagrpota failed to make
2 payments, Oakley initiated arbitration proceedings against
3 Hagrpota in New York.
4 Hagrpota filed a motion in the United States District
5 Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) to
6 stay the arbitration on the grounds that the parties did not
7 have a written agreement to arbitrate the relevant dispute;
8 Oakley cross-moved to compel arbitration. Judge McMahon
9 denied Hagrpota’s motion and granted Oakley’s cross-motion
10 because the parties’ 2007-2009 contracts contained (or
11 included reference to) an arbitration clause covering any
12 “claim arising out of or relating to” their agreement.
13 Hagrpota for Trading & Distrib., Ltd. v. Oakley Fertilizer
14 Inc., No. 09 Civ. 9779(CM)(KNF), 2010 WL 2594286, at *6, *8
15 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2010) (emphasis in original). The court
16 closed the case, after its subsequent denial of Hagrpota’s
17 motion for reconsideration.
18 Section 16(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act permits
19 an appeal to be taken from “a final decision with respect to
20 an arbitration that is subject to this title.” 9 U.S.C. §
21 16(a)(3). Pursuant to this Court’s precedent, Judge
22 McMahon’s order compelling arbitration, and her
3
1 corresponding docket entry directing the clerk of the court
2 to close the case, constituted a final order from which
3 Hagrpota chose not to appeal. See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young
4 U.S., L.L.C. v. Nackel, 346 F.3d 360, 362 (2d Cir. 2003)
5 (per curiam).
6 The arbitration panel awarded Oakley approximately
7 $10.5 million plus interest. During the course of the
8 arbitration proceeding, Hagrpota asked the arbitrators to
9 rule that the dispute was not arbitrable, making the same
10 argument it had unsuccessfully urged to Judge McMahon. The
11 panel, however, concluded that the dispute was arbitrable.
12 Oakley brought a motion to confirm this award in the
13 Southern District of New York; the case was given a new
14 docket number and assigned to Judge Crotty. As Hagrpota
15 argued before Judge Crotty, Judge McMahon, and the
16 arbitrators, Hagrpota maintains on appeal that the parties
17 did not have a written agreement to arbitrate the relevant
18 dispute. Hagrpota claims that this is a distinct civil
19 action (with a different docket number and before a
20 different judge), but the difference is of no moment.
21 Hagrpota’s decision not to appeal from Judge McMahon’s
22 final order, which rejected Hargpota’s contention that the
4
1 dispute was not arbitrable and closed the case before her,
2 estops Hagrpota from now appeal from Judge Crotty’s post-
3 arbitration adherence to Judge McMahon’s ruling on that
4 question.
5 We have considered Hagrpota’s remaining arguments and
6 deem them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons,
7 the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
12
5