Sensordynamics Ag Entwicklungs—und Produktionsge-Sellschaft v. Memsco, LLC , 407 F. App'x 201 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                DEC 29 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SENSORDYNAMICS AG                                No. 08-56803
    ENTWICKLUNGS - UND
    PRODUKTIONSGESELLSCHAFT, an                      D.C. No. 8:08-cv-00966-DOC-AN
    Austrian corporation; FRAUNHOFER-
    GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG
    DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG                        MEMORANDUM*
    EV, an incorporated society,
    Petitioners - Appellants,
    v.
    MEMSCO, LLC, a California limited
    liability company,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 6, 2010
    Pasadena, California
    Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    SensorDynamics appeals the district court order denying its petition to
    confirm a foreign arbitral partial award. We affirm.
    As this court has held, “judicial review of non-final arbitration awards
    should be indulged, if at all, only in the most extreme cases.” Pacific Reinsurance
    Management Corp. v. Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 
    935 F.2d 1019
    , 1022 (9th Cir.
    1991) (internal quotations omitted). This guideline accords with the fundamental
    principle of federal procedure that a “court may direct entry of a final judgment as
    to one or more, but fewer than all claims ... only if the court determines that there
    is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b).
    In the award at issue, the arbitration tribunal acknowledged that it is subject
    to change based on a number of factors during the arbitration. The award is
    therefore not final. Because the arbitration is set to move forward to a final
    decision settling all claims, and because denial of the interim relief sought presents
    no obstacle thereto, we find no reason in this case to depart from the general rule
    requiring that an arbitration award be final in order to be confirmed.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-56803

Citation Numbers: 407 F. App'x 201

Judges: Pregerson, Clifton, Bea

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024