The following are digests and case links to Circuit Court Admiralty Cases that have as an issue arbitration:

Salim Oleochemicals v. M/V Shropshire
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
January 18, 2002

Arbitration: Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Green Tree Financial Corp.- Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000), a dismissal without prejudice in favor of arbitration is an appealable "final decision" under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), and  Green Tree  has overruled Second Circuit precedents that distinguish between "independent" and "embedded" actions for purposes of appealability.

Louis Dreyfus v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
June 7, 2001

Arbitration/Charter Parties: The charter's New York arbitration clause, which provided that any "dispute arising from the making, performance or termination of this Charter Party" be arbitrated, was a broad arbitration clause. Thus, by implicating the rights of Owner and the duties of Charterer under the charter party, Owner's claims under collateral letters of indemnity given by Charterer in return for discharging cargo without presentation of the bills of lading were within the scope of the broad arbitration clause and were subject to New York arbitration.

U.S. Titan Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
February 15, 2001

Arbitration/Charter Parties: The district court correctly held that the parties did not enter into an "ad hoc" agreement to arbitrate whether they had formed a charter party, but that they had formed a charter party that included an arbitration clause requiring London arbitration. Foreign Sovereign Immunity: Although defendant vessel owner was a Chinese state-owned company, it was not immune from petitioner's action to compel arbitration in London in view of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's arbitration exception.

Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. Pol-Atlantic
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
October 13, 2000

Limitation of Liability Act: When a vessel owner personally warrants the seaworthiness of the vessel, the owner has made a personal contract and is not entitled to limitation under the Act. Thus where the slot charter at issue contained such a personal promise, the slot charterers' indemnity claims against the owner for cargo damage fall outside the limitation proceeding. Arbitration: If on remand the district court concludes that the owner and slot charterers agreed to arbitrate within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the slot charterers raise no other valid defenses, the court should grant owner's motion to stay the indemnity claims and require that such claims be brought in London arbitration pursuant to the charter.

ContiChem LPG v. Parsons Shipping Co.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
October 11, 2000

Maritime Attachment: Plaintiff improperly attempted to circumvent the rule against a Rule B maritime attachment of property not yet in the bank's possession by improperly using a temporary restraining order under state law to prohibit the transfer of funds out of the district before the Rule B attachment could be served, thus the District Court's order vacating the Rule B maritime attachment of those funds was upheld. Arbitration: Plaintiff was not entitled to a state law attachment under New York C.P.L.R. 7502(c) since that provision only allows attachment in aid of domestic arbitration and is consequently not available in aid of London arbitration.

In re Deiulemar Compagna
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
December 6, 1999

Procedure: The charterer was allowed to preserve evidence of the condition of  the vessel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 due to "extraordinary circumstances"; Arbitration: The district court properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 27 to preserve vessel evidence in aid of London Arbitration.

Jones Act/Arbitration: The district court properly ordered plaintiff foreign seaman's personal injury claim to arbitration since plaintiff's employment contract containing the arbitration provision was covered by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208, which does not contain an exclusion for seamen employment contracts as does the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16.

OPE International v. Chet Morrison Contractors
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
August 9, 2001 (Revised)

Arbitration: The Federal Arbitration Act preempts section 9:2779 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes that would have precluded the parties from enforcing the agreement to arbitrate, thus the district court properly compelled the parties to submit to arbitration.

Texaco Exploration v. Amclyde Engineered Products
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 28, 2001

Arbitration/Procedure: Rule 14(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for liberal joinder of third parties in maritime cases, does not suprecede the statutory right to enforce an arbitration clause pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, thus the District Court erred in failing to enforce an arbitration clause because its enforcement would deny a party the ability to implead a third party pursuant to Rule 14(c).

Local 1351 ILA v. Sea-Land Service
Fifth Circuit Court of  Appeals
June 9, 2000

Arbitration: The district court's decision to order a tripartite arbitration where a final judgment had previously been entered based on an arbitration award between two of the parties was in error. 

Glencore Grain v. Shivnath Rai Harnarian Co.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 26, 2002

Arbitration: The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C.§§ 201-208, does not eliminate the due process requirement that a federal court have jurisdiction over a defendant's person or property in a suit to confirm a previously issued arbitration award. Because Plaintiff failed (1) to identify any property owned by Defendant in the forum, or (2) to allege facts that support a finding of personal jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Inlandboatmens Union of the Pacific v. Dutra Construction
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 7, 2002

Labor Law/Arbitration: Disputes arising under a side agreement that does not contain an arbitration provision must nonetheless be arbitrated if the dispute relates to a subject that is within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement's ("CBA") arbitration clause. Thus, the dispute here over a settlement agreement concerning subcontracting procedures, which is a matter explicitly referred to in the CBA, must be arbitrated under the CBA's broad arbitration clause.