North Supply Co. v. Greater Development & Services Corp. case
brief summary
728 F.2d 363 (1984)
CASE FACTS
Defendants, corporation and its principals, entered into an agreement with plaintiff supplier to act as its representative in procuring foreign military contracts. Defendant principal was deported from a foreign country and plaintiff executed a contract with the foreign country on its own. Defendants claimed a right to commission payments and plaintiff filed an action seeking reformation of the contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action under the arbitration clause of the contract. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of the arbitration. Both parties appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court dismissed defendants', corporation and its principals, and plaintiff supplier's appeal of the order of the district court, which denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss, in plaintiff's action against defendants for reformation of a contract to pay commissions, and held that plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration was nonappealable.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
728 F.2d 363 (1984)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants, corporation and its
principals, and plaintiff supplier sought review of the order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which
denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration, and denied
defendants' motion to dismiss, in plaintiff's action against
defendants for reformation of a contract to pay defendants
commissions on foreign military sales.CASE FACTS
Defendants, corporation and its principals, entered into an agreement with plaintiff supplier to act as its representative in procuring foreign military contracts. Defendant principal was deported from a foreign country and plaintiff executed a contract with the foreign country on its own. Defendants claimed a right to commission payments and plaintiff filed an action seeking reformation of the contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action under the arbitration clause of the contract. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of the arbitration. Both parties appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and held that the district court's order denying plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration was nonappealable.
- The court held that there were strong policies in favor of arbitration and against interlocutory piecemeal appeals.
- The court held that orders granting a stay of arbitration were appealable under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(a)(1) as an interlocutory order granting an injunction, but held that orders denying a stay were not appealable.
CONCLUSION
The court dismissed defendants', corporation and its principals, and plaintiff supplier's appeal of the order of the district court, which denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss, in plaintiff's action against defendants for reformation of a contract to pay commissions, and held that plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration was nonappealable.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment