Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Gjensidig) v. M&F Fishing, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 11, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00960
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 || Marquis Aurbach Chad F. Clement, Esq. 2 || Nevada Bar No. 12192 Alexander K. Calaway, Esq. 3 || Nevada Bar No. 15188 10001 Park Run Drive 4 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 || Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 cclement@ maclaw.com 6 || acalaway @maclaw.com Attorneys for Petitioners 7 g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 | ASSURANCEFORENINGEN SKULD Case Number: 2:23-cv-00960-JCM-BNW (GJENSIDIG) and SKULD MUTUAL 11 | PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA) LTD., ORDER CONFIRMING « 12 FOREIGN ARBITRATION AWARD % Petitioners, 13 BBE Vs. 14 . M&F FISHING, INC., a Nevada Corporation, 15 Respondent. “3% 16 On June 21, 2023, Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Gjensidig) (“Skuld”) and Skuld 18] Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd. (“Skuld Bermuda”) 19 || (collectively, “Petitioners’”) filed their joint Petition and Memorandum of Points and 20 || Authorities to Confirm Foreign Arbitration Award. ECF No. 1. Respondent M&F Fishing, 21 || Inc. (“Respondent” or “M&F”) was served through its designated agent on June 30, 2023. 22 || ECF No. 6. Respondent failed to appear and respond to the Petition. ECF No. 7 (Notice of 23 || Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Foreign Arbitration Award). Venue is proper in this 24 || District pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 204 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Respondent is located 25 || and incorporated in Nevada. 26 The Petitioners seek an order confirming the Norwegian Arbitral Tribunal’s March 27 || 21, 2023 Award in Arbitration Case and separate Cost Recovery in Arbitration Case (both 28 || referred to collectively as the “Arbitration Award”) attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration

1 of Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød. ECF No. 2-5. The arbitration proceedings were initiated on July 2 5, 2022. Arbitration Award ¶4. The Arbitral Tribunal consisted of three members: Former 3 Norway Supreme Court Justice Karin M. Bruzelius (President of the Tribunal), Jon 4 Andersen and Trond Eilertsen. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, the Respondent did 5 not participate in the arbitration proceedings. Arbitration Award ¶¶ 4-19 & 72 (cost 6 submission based, in part, on “defendants lack of participation and cooperation in these 7 proceedings”). Similarly, the Respondent has failed to appear and oppose the Petition after 8 service of the summons and Petition. ECF No. 7. 9 The Court has considered the written arbitration agreement between the parties, the 10 Arbitration Award and the supporting Skaldebø-Rød Declaration. As the Ninth Circuit has 11 explained, “[f]ederal law permits a party who was victorious in a recognized foreign 12 arbitration proceeding to seek confirmation of the award in the United States under the New 13 York Convention, and the statute gives the courts little discretion when considering such 14 petitions.” Seung Woo Lee v. Imaging3, Inc., 283 F. App’x 490, 492 (9th Cir. 2008). If a 15 court has jurisdiction under the New York Convention, it must confirm an arbitration award 16 unless it determines that one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or 17 enforcement of the award specified in the Convention applies. 9 U.S.C. § 207. Because 18 awards governed by the New York Convention must be confirmed unless one of these 19 narrow grounds applies, “[c]onfirmation is a summary proceeding that converts a final 20 arbitration award into a judgment of the court.” Ministry of Def. and Support for Armed 21 Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1091, 1094 n.1 (9th Cir. 22 2011). No such grounds have been presented, or are apparent, from the record before the 23 Court. 24 The Arbitral Tribunal attempted multiple times to provide the Respondent an 25 opportunity to present its defense. Respondent failed to oppose the claims resolved by the 26 Arbitral Tribunal. Nonetheless, the Arbitral Tribunal evaluated and resolved the merits of 27 the claims before it under applicable Norwegian law (which the Tribunal found replicated 1 the UNCITRAL Model Law), despite Respondent’s failure to participate. Arbitration 2 Award ¶¶11-12, 51-74. 3 Next, under this Court’s Local Rules, the Respondent’s failure to oppose the Petition 4 is deemed consent to granting the motion. LR 7-2(d). (“the failure of an opposing party to 5 file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to granting of the motion.”); see 7 also, 9 U.S.C. § 6 (a petition to confirm under the New York Convention and FAA, like the 8 present Petition, “shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and 9 hearing of motions ...”); 3 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 4:140 (2018) (“Thus, an arbitration award 10 under the Convention may be enforced by filing a petition or application for an order 11 confirming the award supported by an affidavit. The hearing on such a petition or 12 application will take the form of a summary procedure in the nature of federal motion 13 practice.”); 9 USC §12 (notice of motion to vacate, modify or correct an arbitration award 14 must be served within three months after the award is filed or delivered); Traf 15 Intercontinental Elektronik-Handels GmbH v. Sonocine, Inc., No. 317CV00672LRHWGC, 16 2019 WL 918987, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2019), citing Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, 17 Local No. 252 v. Standard Sheet Metal, Inc., 699 F.2d 481, 483 (9th Cir. 1983). 18 Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that: 19 The March 21, 2023 Arbitration Award and the companion Cost Recovery in 20 Arbitration Case are CONFIRMED in all respects under Section 207 of the Federal 21 Arbitration Act and that JUDGMENT against Respondent M&F Fishing, Inc. shall be 22 entered in conformity with the “Award” section of the Arbitration Award as follows: 23 1. “M&F Fishing Inc. does not have cover under policy no. 24 20778555 for the claim brought by Mr. Donald Correia relating to the personal injury allegedly sustained by Mr. Correia in an 25 incident on the FV Koorale on or about 19 June 2017.” 26 27 I 2. “M&F Fishing Inc. shall pay NOK 984 062. to Assuranceforeningen Skuld (gjensidig) and Skuld Mutual 2 Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd. for the fees and expenses of their legal representation in this arbitration, 3 together with interest according to the Late Payment Act running from 30 days after the date of the final award until full payment 4 is received.” 5 6 3. “M&F Fishing Inc. shall pay all costs and expenses of this arbitration, including the fees and expenses of the Arbitral 7 Tribunal, and any other costs or expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration, together with interest according to the Late 8 Payment Act running from 30 days after the date of the final 9 award until full payment is received.” 10 The total amount due under the “Award” No. 3 is NOK 248,738 which shall be 11 || reflected in the judgment. Skaldebg-Rgd Declaration 931 (ECF No. 2). « 12 The Petition’s request for an award of post-judgment interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 2% 13 || § 1961, that may become due after judgment has been entered in this case is GRANTED B26 14 || and shall become part of the judgment. 445 fac Is A t 11, 2023 a (ttt 2. Atoll. = 8 16 Dated: ugus i AL ? all A. 7 \__TAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28