New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Attorneys’ Fees under the Federal Arbitration Act for Prevailing over Unsuccessful Attack on Arbitration Award

Download PDF

From Western Tech. Servs. Int’l v. Cauchous Indus., S.A., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121269 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2010):

Petitioner Western Technology Services International, Inc. ("Petitioner" or "Westech") filed its Notice of Application and Application to Confirm Arbitration Award on June 4, 2009. Westech and Respondent Cauchos Industriales, S.A. ("Respondent" or "Cainsa") entered into three agreements that are at issue in the underlying arbitration (the "Agreements"). Westech instituted arbitration, seeking a declaration that it properly terminated the agreements and seeking contractual remedies. It later sought a preliminary injunction pursuant to these agreements. The arbitration panel held a hearing on May 13 and 14, 2009, and granted Westech's motion for preliminary injunction.

Westech sought confirmation of the arbitration panel's June 2, 2009 preliminary injunction (the "Preliminary Injunction"), and Cainsa moved to vacate the Preliminary Injunction and to preliminarily enjoin the effectuation of the Preliminary Injunction until the court ruled on its motion to vacate. Westech moved for sanctions against Cainsa, contending that its motions to vacate and for a preliminary injunction were frivolous.

On January 15, 2010, the court confirmed the Preliminary Injunction, denied Cainsa's motions for preliminary injunction, and granted Westech's motion for sanctions. The court also entered judgment confirming the Preliminary Injunction. Cainsa subsequently moved for reconsideration of the portion of the court's decision granting sanctions against it. The court held a hearing on the motion for reconsideration on April 7, 2010, and, on May 7, 2010, the court vacated the portions of its January 15, 2010 memorandum opinion and order sanctioning Cainsa. ***

Westech has now moved to recover its attorney's fees incurred in this enforcement action. It argues that Cainsa's challenges to the Preliminary Injunction were not cognizable under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), were frivolous, and were without legal justification. ***

A. Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the FAA

*** A district court may award attorney's fees against a party making challenges to arbitration awards that are not cognizable under the FAA, are frivolous, or are without legal justification. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Dist. 776 v. Texas Steel Co., 639 F.2d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 1981). ***

For the reasons that it determined that Cainsa should not be sanctioned, the court finds that Cainsa should not be held responsible for attorney's fees. *** Although ultimately unsuccessful, the court determines that Cainsa's arguments do not meet the standard set forth in International Association of Machinists. This is a close call, but the court will not exercise its discretion to award attorney's fees to Westech in light of its ultimate decision that Cainsa's actions were not sanctionable. The court finds that Cainsa's position regarding vacatur was arguably cognizable under the FAA, and that it was not frivolous or without some legal justification.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice