Page 10 - 2014_0331_ssADR

S10 | MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2014 | Alternative Dispute Resolution
| NYLJ.COM

Arbitration
Non-Signatories
than traveling within Latin America. Once in cor ... even absent [Oncor’s] intention to be bound”).
14. Roby v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, 996 F.2d 1353, 1360
Miami, Latin American parties feel at home (2d Cir. 1993).
given the prevalence of Spanish speaking pro- 15. 88 N.Y.2d 1054, 1055 (1996).
« Continued from page S3
fessionals in South Florida. Consequently, it « Continued from page S7
16. Id.
dollar is far more affordable than either the should be expected that international arbitra- Law International 2001) (“[M]any authorities apply to 17. Id. at 1056.
Euro or the English Pound Sterling. Further, tions in Miami will continue to be dominated substantive law of the arbitral situs to arbitration agree- ments.”).
18. Id. (citations omitted).
between New York and Miami, there is a sig- 3. 351 F.2d 503, 505-06 (2d Cir. 1965). 19. American Fuel v. Utah Energy Dev., 122 F.3d 130,
133 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d 773).
nificant advantage for Miami as it relates to by Latin American disputes, while New York 4. Id. at 505. 20. See, e.g., Freeman v. Complex Computing, 119 F.3d
cost, both in terms of logistics (hotels, etc.) will continue to serve a the situs for disputes 5. Id. 1044, 1052 (2d Cir. 1997).
as well as cost of professionals.
worldwide.
6. Id. at 506.
21. Mobius Mgmt. Sys. v. Technologic Software Con-
There is no disputing the increasing impor- 7. See also, e.g., JS & H Const. v. Richmond County Hospital Authority, 473 F.2d 212, 213-15 (5th Cir. 1973) cepts, 2002 WL 31106409, at **2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20,
Of course, there is a significant distinc- (affirming stay of subcontractor suit in favor of pending 2002).
tion between New York and Miami as a venue tance of international arbitration or of the arbitration where provision in subcontract incorporated 22. Id. at *4.
for international arbitration: the parties that rapid progress of New York City and Miami by reference the “general conditions” of the prime con- 23. 1992 WL 80659, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 1992).
make up the arbitrations. While New York as international arbitration hot spots. So, struction contract, which in turn included an arbitration 24. Id. at *3.
hosts arbitrations regarding disputes from all both New York and Miami can expect to host clause).
8. 933 F.2d 1100, 1105 (2d Cir. 1991). 25. Id. at *3.
regions of the world, the international arbi- more international arbitration proceedings 9. Id. at 1104, 26. Petitions of Laitasalo, 196 B.R. 913, 924 (Bankr.
trations venued in Miami typically involve 10. Id. at 1105 (citation omitted). S.D.N.Y. 1996).
disputes emanating from Latin America. to resolve disputes in all business sectors, 11. Id.; accord, e.g., Data-Stream AS/RS Techs. v. China
27. 33 A.D.3d 568, 569 (1st Dep’t 2006).
including energy, telecommunications, finan- Int’l Marine Containers, 2003 WL 22519456, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2003) (“CIMC participated in the arbitration as 28. Id.
Although Miami is a global city, it has a par- cial services, construction, and technology. CIMC-TianDa’s parent and in the posture of a legitimate 29. Id.; see also BP Air Conditioning v. Lasorsa, 2010
ticularly high concentration of Latin Ameri- Arbitrators, practitioners, and clients alike party. In fact, CIMC even offered claims of its own based WL 4567832 (Trial Order) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. Oct.
cans. Consequently, parties from throughout value the internationally-focused legal ameni- on the contract for the EVA System. By participating in 27, 2010) (“Petitioners BPAC, BP Mechanical, Losey and
Latin America exhibit a personal preference the arbitration, CIMC effectively waived its right to claim Barbera, by virtue of their efforts to benefit from the re-
for Miami as a venue to resolve their inter- ties offered in these two world-class cities, not that it should not be a party to the arbitration.”).
12. Restatement (Second) of Agency, §1(1) (1958).
strictive covenants in the 1999 Plan, which survived the
national disputes. For example, many Latin to mention the ability to find time outside the 13. See, e.g., Alamria v. Telcor Int’l, 920 F. Supp. 658, 2005 Amendment, are bound by the arbitration agree-
Americans regularly travel to Miami and may meeting rooms to take in a basketball game, 674 (D. Md. 1996) (compelling arbitration against non- ment in the 1999 Plan, notwithstanding the fact that they
even own a second home there. Moreover, some fun in the sun, shopping, the nightlife signatory Oncor where, “[a]s an officer of Oncor, Switzer are not signatories to that agreement.”).
traveling to Miami is in many respects easier
of South Beach, or a Broadway show.
may have bound Oncor to the Alamria/Telcor Contract 30. Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 778 (discussing alter ego)
even though he signed the Contract as an officer of Tel-
(citation omitted).

From the publisher of

COMPLETE COVERAGE THAT YOU CAN ACCESS ANYWHERE

The only approach for providing 360 ̊

coverage of the New York Commercial Division.

New York Commercial Litigation Insider is your

ticket to the most comprehensive coverage –

conveniently available online.

WWW.LITINSIDER.COM

@NYComLitInsider