Trajkovski Invest AB, et al. v. I.Am.Plus Electronics Inc.
Published: Jun. 19, 2020 | Result Date: May 7, 2020 | Filing Date: Jan. 6, 2020 |Case number: 2:20-cv-00152-ODW-JEM Arbitration – Petitioners
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Malcolm S. McNeil
(ArentFox Schiff LLP)
Stefan Bogdanovich
(Bursor & Fisher PA)
Defendant
Shamar J. Toms-Anthony
(Faegre, Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP)
Erin E. McCracken
(Berger & Hipskind LLP)
Ryan M. Salzman
(Faegre, Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP)
Facts
Petitioners Trajkovski Invest AB, OPK Holding AB, Linden Invent AB, among others, are a group of Swedish technology start-up entrepreneurs and investors who collectively owned all the shares of Earin AB which is a technology company and manufacturer of wireless Bluetooth headphones.
Petitioners alleged that respondent I.Am.Plus Electronics, Inc. agreed to purchase Earin, but failed to pay the purchase price. After the deal fell through, petitioners filed an arbitration claim against respondent in Sweden.
In this matter, petitioners requested recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award they obtained.
Contentions
PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS: Petitioners contended that when they filed their arbitration claim with the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce for damages, each party was required to advance half the costs of the arbitration, but respondent failed to pay its portion. Petitioners contended that they paid respondent's separate fees so that their claim would not get dismissed. Petitioners requested to have the portion paid on behalf of respondent refunded. The tribunal awarded petitioners 210,000 Euros. Petitioners sought to confirm that separate award, arguing that although the other issues in the arbitration proceedings have not yet been resolved, the separate award conclusively disposed of a discrete issue.
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS: Respondent denied the contentions and contended the court should not confirm the separate award because the initial arbitral tribunal had not issued its final ruling yet. Respondent additionally contended petitioners failed to demonstrate an immediate need for relief.
Result
The court granted petitioners' motion to recognize and enforce the award, concluding that the separate award was based on the discrete issue of advance costs, and that petitioners were not required to show an immediate need for relief.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390