Filed: Dec. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SENSORDYNAMICS AG No. 08-56803 ENTWICKLUNGS - UND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 S
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SENSORDYNAMICS AG No. 08-56803 ENTWICKLUNGS - UND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 St..
More
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2010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