Opinion
2:11-CV-1355 JCM (GWF).
October 17, 2011
ORDER
Presently before the court is plaintiff Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C.'s petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award. (Doc. #1). Defendant Michael Cummiskey has filed an opposition to the petition. (Doc. #13). Defendant Hamid Najafi has not filed an opposition. Injazat has replied to Cummiskey's opposition. (Doc. #17).
I. Background
II. Discussion
9 U.S.C. § 201et. seq. 9 U.S.C. § 2029 U.S.C. § 207see also Seung Woo Lee v. Imaging3, Inc.283 Fed. Appx. 4904929 U.S.C. § 203 9 U.S.C. § 207
See UNCITRAL, 1958 — Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,
Defendant Cummiskey has failed to allege that any of the enumerated defenses apply. Rather, he has attacked the underlying factual and legal bases upon which the award was granted. This court, however, "shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention" exist. See 9 U.S.C. § 207. Because Mr. Cummiskey has failed to persuade this court that an enumerated defense precludes confirmation of the award, it must be confirmed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that plaintiff Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C.'s petition for confirmation of arbitral award (doc. #1) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the clerk of the court shall enter final judgment in favor of Injazat and against Michael Cummiskey.
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.