|
In Amegy Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Miss Cony, No. 06-00405 SOM/KSC, 2006 WL 2793172 (D. Hawaii Sept. 27, 2006), the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii compelled arbitration of Amegy Bank’s in personam claims, but not in rem claims based on the seizure of a vessel.
Amegy Bank asserted that Richard Foreman defaulted on payment obligations under a series of promissory notes. Subsequent amendments to the notes included an arbitration clause covering “all disputes claims and controversies between [the parties].” Amegy filed an action against Foreman, and obtained a warrant to arrest the vessel “Miss Cony,” which was detained at the marina where it was located. Foreman moved to arbitrate Amegy Bank’s claims.
The Court held that the in personam claims based on the contractual relationship between Amegy Bank and Foreman were fully arbitrable, while the in rem claims were not. Neither side challenged the validity of the arbitration clause, so the Court was left only to determine whether or not the claims were within the agreement’s scope. See Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). Noting that the FAA leaves very little room for the discretion of a district court, the Court found that the arbitration clause clearly touched matters covered by the contract, meaning that arbitration was required.
With regards to the arbitrability of the in rem claims against the vessel, however, the Court acknowledged that the Miss Cony itself “was not a party to the arbitration agreement.” However, the Court refused to grant Amegy’s motion for an interlocutory sale of the vessel in order to “preserve the parties’ agreement to arbitrate the in personam claims.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|