|
Agreeing to arbitrate in California manifests submission to the jurisdiction of California courts, a state court in California held.
In Fujitsu Software Corp. v. Hinman, No. A112781, 2006 WL 2789139 (Cal. App. Sept. 28, 2006), an arbitrator issued an award in Fujitsu’s favor when Hinman failed to deposit a source code for software into escrow, as required by the parties’ agreement. The award also ordered Hinman to provide support and maintenance services, as provided by the agreement.
The award ordered Hinman to deposit the source code within 10 business days, which Hinman failed to do. The arbitration took place in the San Francisco office of the American Arbitration Association, a venue to which the parties agreed.
Fujitsu filed a petition to confirm the award, and Hinman opposed, arguing that the California court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. In confirming that arbitration award, the Court pointed to the many reasons that it had jurisdiction over Hinman, including the fact that Hinman entered into a business contract with a California corporation and had sufficient contacts in California.
Most importantly, the Court held that Hinman’s agreement to arbitrate in California served as consent to the jurisdiction of California courts to confirm any resulting arbitration award. Additionally, the fact that Hinman’s appearance in this action—including filing a “cross-motion” to “modify/correct or, alternatively, vacate” the arbitration award—waived any objection to the court’s jurisdiction over him.
Lastly, Hinman also argued that confirmation of the arbitration award violated the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution by forcing him to deposit the source code into escrow and to provide support and maintenance services. The Court again disagreed with Hinman, pointing out that ordering someone to fulfill a contractual duty is not forcing that person into involuntary servitude or slavery.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|