Case ID: f-appx_259/html/0364-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OILMAR CO., LTD., Plaintiff, Lloyd’s Interested Underwriters, Thai Tokai Prod. Co., Ltd. and Carbon Black Public Co., Ltd., Consolidated-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ENERGY TRANSPORT LTD. and P.T. Cabot Indonesia, Defendants, Marine, Inc., Transport, Ltd. and Adam Maritime Corp., Garnishees, Oilmar Co. Ltd. Panama, San Sebastian, MV and San Sebastian M/T, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-5317-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 3, 2008.
    Thomas E. Willoughby, Hill Rivkins & Hayden, LLP, New York, New York, Craig S. English, Kennedy Lillis Schmidt & English, New York, NY, for Consolidated-Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Jeremy J.O. Harwood, Blank Rome, LLP, New York, NY, for Consolidated-Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants Lloyd’s Interested Underwriters, Thai Tokai Product Co., Ltd. and Carbon Black Public Co., Ltd. (collectively, “plaintiffs”) appeal from the May 31, 2006 order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Droney, J.), granting defendant-appellee Oilmar Co. Ltd. Panama, San Sebastian, MV and San Sebastian M/T’s (collectively, “defendant”) motion for reconsideration and denying plaintiffs’ respective motions to compel arbitration on the ground of equitable estoppel. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

Despite plaintiffs’ protestations to the contrary, the district court fairly concluded that plaintiffs waived the argument that the bills of lading incorporated the Charter Party’s arbitration clause. For substantially the same reasons as articulated in the district court’s order, we agree that absent such incorporation and under the circumstances of this case, judicial estoppel does not apply.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons discussed, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.