Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00004-SLR Document 21 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TI-IE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
REMOTE SOLUTION CO., LTD., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 06-004-KAJ
)
FGH LIOUIDATING CORP. f/k/a ) M Q
CONTEC CORPORATION, ) §
I R
Respondent. ) ¢’> {gz/¤__,
Jr
—¤
MEMORANDUM ORDER K
I. INTRooucTioN *3
Before me is a Motion for Reconsideration and to Amend (Docket Item ["D.I."]
17; the "Motion"), filed by Remote Solution Co., Ltd. ("Remote Solution"), with respect to
my Memorandum Order of September 22, 2006 (D.|. 16), in which I denied Remote
Solutlon’s Motion to Vacate or Modify Arbitration Awards (D.l. 1) for failing to set forth a
proper basis for subject matterjurisdiction (D.l. 16 at 3). Remote Solution requests that
I reconsider my decision, or, inthe alternative, that I amend the Order to permit Remote
Solution to cure the jurisdictional defect. (D.I. 17 at 4.) The respondent, FGH
Liquidating Corp. f/k/a Contec Corporation ("Contec"), asks only that Remote Solutlon’s
present Motion be decided promptly so that, if necessary, it can file an application to
confirm the arbitration award within the time frame set forth by 9 U.S.C. § 9. (D.I. 20.)
For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted to the extent that Remote

Case 1:06-cv-00004-SLR Document 21 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 2 of 3
Solution will be allowed to renew its previous motion to vacate or modify the arbitration
award.
II. DISCUSSION
In my l\/lemorandum Order of September 22, 2006, I denied Remote Solution’s
motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award because it incorrectly claimed that the
court had subject matterjurisdictlon pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §
1 et seq. (D.l. 16 at 1-2.) In addition, the motion failed to allege facts from which I
could conclude that the requirements of diversityjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
were satisfied. (ld. at 2-3.) l—lowever, I did not deny the motion with prejudice. (See id.
at 3.) Accordingly, Remote Solution will have the opportunity to renew its motion and
establish proper grounds for subject matterjurisdictlon. Contec simply requests that the
jurisdictional issue be resolved, so that the arbitration award, if not vacated or modified,
can be confirmed. (D.I. 20.) Since it does not appear that Contec will be prejudiced in
any fashion, the renewed motion will relate back to the original filing date of January 3,
2006, to avoid any dispute regarding its timeliness. See 9 U.S.C. § 12 ("Notice of a
motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be sen/ed upon the adverse party or
his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered.").
In its brief opposing Remotion Solution’s motion to vacate or modify the
arbitration award, Contec applied for an order confirming the award. (D.l. 10 at 1-2; id.
at 34.) According to 9 U.S.C. § 9, "at any time within one year after the award is made
any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified [by the parties’ arbitration
agreement] for an order confirming the award." The arbitration agreement involved in
2

Case 1:06-cv-00004-SLR Document 21 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 3 of 3
this case states that "judgment upon the award so rendered may be entered and
enforced in any court of competentjurisdiction? (D.l. 9, Ex. E at 10.) Therefore, if
Remote Solution files an amended and renewed motion that properly pleads a basis for
subject matterjurisdiction, I will consider the merits of its motion to vacate or modify the
arbitration award, as well as Contec’s application to confirm the award, in light of the
arguments already made by the parties. Contec may, of course, independently file a
request for confirmation of the award, regardless of what Remote Solution chooses to
do. See 9 U.S.C. § 9.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Motion (D.l. 17) is GRANTED to the extent that Remote Solution can renew and amend
its motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award (D.l. 1), such motion to relate back
to the original filing date, January 3, 2006.
UN TED STATES DISTRIC /_ UDGE
December 5, 2006 J
Wilmington, Delaware
3