![]() The significance of a foreign judgment for pending litigation depends obviously on its meaning, which will require an accurate translation if, as in this case, the judgment was rendered by a court in a non-English-speaking country. 1982)) the sensible procedure is first to lodge it with the trial court, as in the Ramirez, Train House, and Garland cases, and that is the usual practice. 1993), but in most cases (not all" see, e.g., Crockett v. An American court can take judicial notice of a foreign judgment, Hilton v. But what about the recent Italian judgment in Italian Gabbanelli's favor? The company had tried, before the appeal was argued, to submit it directly to us, but we directed that it instead be submitted to the district judge, with a request that he make it a part of the record, as in United States v.Italian Gabbanelli waived its right to insist on arbitration by bringing suit upon a "further controversy" between the parties in violation of the arbitration clause in its settlement agreement with American Gabbanelli. So not only is there no jurisdictional obstacle there is no contractual (or for that matter any other) obstacle. 1992)"which in effect is what happened in this case. This is apparent from the fact that parties to an arbitration agreement can always waive the agreement and decide to duke out their dispute in court, Grumhaus v. La Societe Navale Caennaise, 239 F.2d 689, 694 (4th Cir. But even if the defense is sound, it no more deprives the court of jurisdiction than a defense based on any other contractual forum-selection clause would. A person who having agreed to arbitrate instead brings a suit has broken his contract, and the breach can be pleaded as a defense to his suit. The issue of the effect of the arbitration clause on the present lawsuit is in any event not jurisdictional.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |