Filed: Jan. 07, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 92-3244 _ WEST OF ENGLAND SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (LUXEMBOURG), Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _ ***************************************************************** _ No. 92-3724 _ IN RE: AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION, AMERICAN MARINE HOLDING COMPANY, OIL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., LOUISI
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 92-3244 _ WEST OF ENGLAND SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (LUXEMBOURG), Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _ ***************************************************************** _ No. 92-3724 _ IN RE: AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION, AMERICAN MARINE HOLDING COMPANY, OIL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., LOUISIA..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 92-3244
_____________________
WEST OF ENGLAND SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (LUXEMBOURG),
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
___________________________________________________
*****************************************************************
____________________
No. 92-3724
____________________
IN RE: AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION, AMERICAN
MARINE HOLDING COMPANY, OIL TRANSPORT
COMPANY, INC., LOUISIANA MATERIALS
CO., INC., CAJUN CRANE COMPANY,
AGGREGATE BARGES, INC., BAYOU FLEET,
INC., FRERE COMPANY, MODERN BARGE
COMPANY, LESLIE B. DURANT, GRAND
MARINE SENECA BARGE COMPANY, INC.,
OISEAU BROTHERS AUDUBON COMPANY,
DUROW CORPORATION, DUMUR CORPORATION
and NOE BARGE COMPANY,
Petitioners.
____________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
_____________________________________________________
(January 6, 1993)
Before JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and JUSTICE,1 District
Judge.
BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
As in McDermott Int'l v. Underwriter's at Lloyds, ___ F.2d
____ (5th Cir. _____, 1992), decided contemporaneously with this
case, the principal issue at hand is the appealability vel non of
an order compelling arbitration. American Marine Corporation and
others (collectively, "Oil Transport") appeal from district court
orders compelling arbitration of a dispute with West of England
Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg)
("Association"), pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("Convention"), 9 U.S.C. §
201 et seq., and staying litigation pending arbitration. In the
alternative, Oil Transport seeks a writ of mandamus. We hold that
the arbitration orders are interlocutory, not final. Because § 16
of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
provides that such orders are not appealable, and because this case
does not warrant mandamus, we DISMISS the appeal and DENY the writ.
I.
From 1986 to 1990, Oil Transport entered the Association, a
foreign insurance association, to insure its vessels. Participants
in the Association are governed by its rules, one of which requires
arbitration in London of all disputes.2 A dispute arose when the
1
District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
2
Rule 62 ("Arbitration") requires arbitration of "any
difference or dispute ... arising out of any contract between the
Member ... and the Association as to the rights or obligations of
- 2 -
Association charged that Oil Transport had not timely paid calls
(premiums).
The Association notified Oil Transport in July 1991 that it
wished to arbitrate the dispute. Instead, Oil Transport filed suit
in Louisiana state court against the Association and three related
parties, asserting claims under Louisiana law, and seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against arbitration. The
Association then sued in federal district court to compel
arbitration, and removed the state action to that court. In
October 1991, the district court consolidated the two actions.
Oil Transport filed a number of motions, seeking to remand the
state case, vacate the consolidation, dismiss the Association's
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and enjoin the Association from
pursuing proceedings it had filed in England.3 The Association
moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Convention. In
February 1992, the district court denied Oil Transport's motions,
issued an order compelling arbitration, and stayed the proceeding
as to all defendants, including those not subject to the
arbitration agreement.
II.
For review of the arbitration orders, Oil Transport advances
three alternative bases for our jurisdiction.4 As hereinafter
the Association or the Member ... or as to any other matter
whatsoever".
3
In November 1991, the Association had commenced an action in
London to appoint an arbitrator.
4
Permissive 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) jurisdiction is not asserted.
- 3 -
discussed, we lack jurisdiction; therefore, we do not reach the
merits of the district court's ruling.5
A.
First, Oil Transport contends that the orders are appealable
under § 16(a) of the FAA, which allows appeals, inter alia, from "a
final decision with respect to an arbitration". 9 U.S.C. §
16(a)(3). It asserts that the orders are final in the context of
the Association's district court action to compel arbitration, as
originally filed, because they dispose of the only issue presented
in that action -- arbitrability.6
The Association responds that the orders are interlocutory,
not final, because the consolidated claims that are pending present
additional unresolved issues. It asserts that appeal is therefore
barred by § 16(b) of the FAA, which applies to interlocutory orders
compelling arbitration and staying litigation in cases subject to
the FAA or the Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b); McDermott Int'l
v. Underwriters at Lloyds, ___ F.2d ___ (5th Cir. _____, 1992).
In McDermott, we held that where consolidation of an
independent proceeding to compel arbitration with one or more
5
One of those issues is the interplay between § 16 of the FAA,
discussed infra, and the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1101,
et seq. (regulation of the business of insurance for the States).
See 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b). Pursuant to this authority, Louisiana has
prohibited arbitration clauses in insurance policies. See La. Rev.
Stat. 22:629; Doucet v. Dental Health Plans Management Corp., 412
So. 2d 1383, 1384 (La. 1982).
6
Oil Transport's notice of appeal references only the
Association's arbitration action, and does not include the removed
state action consolidated with it. Obviously, this has no effect
on whether the arbitration order is appealable.
- 4 -
actions rendered the cases a single judicial unit, orders
compelling arbitration and staying litigation were considered
interlocutory, not final, for § 16 purposes. The consolidation
orders in this case are identical to those we addressed in
McDermott; we find it controlling.7 Accordingly, the orders were
interlocutory, and appeal is barred by § 16(b). See id.
B.
Second, Oil Transport attempts to invoke jurisdiction under
the collateral order doctrine. (That doctrine is discussed in note
9, infra). This court, however, has rejected application of that
doctrine in cases such as this. See Turboff v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
867 F.2d 1518, 1520 n.5 (5th Cir.
1989); Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.,
864 F.2d 402,
404 (5th Cir.), supplemented,
867 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1989);
Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Birenbaum,
860 F.2d 169, 171-72
(5th Cir. 1988).8
C.
Finally, Oil Transport contends that this court may review the
district court's decision under an application for a writ of
7
Here, as in McDermott, the cases were broadly consolidated
"for disposition" because they "[grew] out of the same factual
situation".
8
It may well be that, because § 16(b) expressly bars appeal,
the collateral order doctrine would not apply even if its
requirements were satisfied; the doctrine falls under § 1291
jurisprudence, while § 16 jurisdiction does not. However, we need
not consider this question.
- 5 -
mandamus. For the reasons stated in McDermott, ___ F.2d at ___,
this case does not justify that extraordinary remedy.
III.
We find no merit in the other issues raised by Oil Transport
touching on jurisdiction.9 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal
is DISMISSED, and the application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.
9
First, because there has been no final order in the case, we
cannot address Oil Transport's separate challenge to the district
court's interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the Association
failed to do so, we address this jurisdictional point sua sponte.
See England v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 975 F.2d 1168, 1171
(5th Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, the denial does not place this case within that
"very narrow class of cases" in which interlocutory appeal is
permissible under the collateral order doctrine, because it is not
"effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment". United
States v. Hashagen, 716 F.2d 1454, 1454-55 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding
denial of motion to dismiss indictment for lack of jurisdiction in
the district court not reviewable under § 1291); see also Louisiana
Ice Cream Distributors, Inc. v. Carvel Corp.,
821 F.2d 1031, 1032-
33 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding denial of motion to dismiss for
improper venue not reviewable under § 1291).
Likewise, Oil Transport asserts that the Association's federal
action should be dismissed because it should have been brought as
a compulsory counterclaim in state court. Oil Transport devotes
only two paragraphs to the argument in support of this contention,
and we find its sparse legal authority unpersuasive. In any event,
this issue was not presented to the district court; and, no
authority need be cited for our not addressing it on appeal for the
first time.
- 6 -
