Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-07135/USCOURTS-caDC-03-07135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 10, 2004 Decided June 29, 2004

No. 03-7135

RAYTHEON COMPANY,

APPELLANT

v.

ASHBORN AGENCIES, LTD,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 02cv02133)

Brian P. Waagner argued the cause for appellant. With

him on the briefs were J. William Eshelman and J. Michael

Littlejohn.

Matthew C. Gruskin argued the cause and filed the brief

for appellee.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #03-7135 Document #832932 Filed: 06/29/2004 Page 1 of 5
2

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and ROBERTS,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GINSBURG.

GINSBURG, Chief Judge: Raytheon Company appeals from

the district court’s dismissal of its petition to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 4

and 206. Because Raytheon’s claimed injury is not redressable by the court, the Company lacks standing to sue under

Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Hence

we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing its

petition.

I. Background

In March 1977 Raytheon’s predecessor, E-Systems, Inc.

entered into a Consulting Agreement with Ashborn Agencies,

Ltd., an Israeli corporation. The Agreement contained the

following arbitration clause:

If any dispute arises between the parties hereto, as to

the meaning of this Agreement or any parts thereof, or

as to the rights or obligations of either party hereunder,

such dispute or difference shall be referred for decision

to a Board of three arbitrators. In case of failure of

either party to appoint its arbitrator TTT the missing

members of the Board shall be appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration shall be

conducted in Washington, D.C., United States of America. The parties hereto agree to accept the decision of

the Board of arbitrators and judgement upon any award

rendered hereunder may be entered into in any Court of

CONSULTANT’s country or the United States of America. The rules of arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce shall apply. The arbitrator shall apply

the laws of the State of Texas, United States of America.

In March 2000 Ashborn demanded $575,152 from Raytheon

for services provided under the Agreement, but Raytheon

disputed the amount. When the parties proved unable to

settle the matter, Raytheon filed a demand for arbitration

USCA Case #03-7135 Document #832932 Filed: 06/29/2004 Page 2 of 5
3

with the ICC. Shortly thereafter Ashborn informed Raytheon it had decided to pursue its claims in the courts of

Israel, and it would ‘‘strictly oppose any attempt to enforce

[the arbitration] provision.’’

Ashborn filed an action for damages in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa

District Court, raising claims Raytheon was seeking to resolve through arbitration. Raytheon responded by filing in

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal

Arbitration Act; it sought an order requiring Ashborn ‘‘to

comply with its written commitment to arbitrate its commercial disputes arising from its two-decade marketing consulting

agreement with [Raytheon].’’

As a party to an international arbitration agreement, Raytheon was proceeding pursuant to Chapter 2 of the FAA, see

9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., which incorporates the Convention on

the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral

Awards. Chapter 1 of the Act applies, however, ‘‘to actions

and proceedings brought under [Chapter 2] to the extent that

[Chapter 1] is not in conflict with [Chapter 2] or the Convention as ratified by the United States.’’ Id. § 208. Chapter 1,

section 4 of the Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, provides in relevant part:

A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or

refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement

for arbitration may petition TTT for an order directing

that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for

in such agreement.

Although the district court determined the parties had

agreed to arbitrate many of the claims Ashborn is pursuing in

Israel, it dismissed Raytheon’s petition. The district court

concluded, first, the aggrieved party requirement in § 4 does

not conflict with anything in Chapter 2 or the Convention;

and second, because the arbitration rules of the ICC — which

were incorporated by reference into the parties’ agreement —

permit ex parte proceedings, Raytheon is not ‘‘aggrieved’’

within the meaning of § 4 by Ashborn’s refusal to participate,

and therefore lacks standing to sue.

USCA Case #03-7135 Document #832932 Filed: 06/29/2004 Page 3 of 5
4

On appeal Raytheon disputes both points. Because we

conclude Raytheon does not have constitutional standing to

sue, we do not reach either one. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for

a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 96-102 (1998) (Article III

standing must be resolved as threshold matter).

II. Analysis

In order to satisfy the ‘‘irreducible constitutional minimum

of standing,’’ a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) it has suffered (or is about to suffer) an injury-in-fact, that (2) was

caused by the respondent and (3) would be redressed by the

relief sought from the court. See Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Here we are concerned

with the first and the third of these requirements.

Raytheon first claims it is injured by Ashborn’s refusal to

arbitrate. Because the Agreement and the rules of the ICC

allow Raytheon to proceed to arbitration ex parte, however,

Raytheon has not demonstrated it suffered any injury-in-fact

as a result of Ashborn’s refusal to participate in the arbitration; Ashborn’s absence should, if anything, make it easier

for Raytheon to obtain a favorable award. In any event, it is

insufficient to establish that Raytheon has been injured.

Raytheon next argues it is injured by Ashborn’s having

sued it in Israel. Specifically, Raytheon points to the costs

and burdens associated with filing its court-ordered response

to Ashborn’s complaint, translating pleadings and other documents from Hebrew into English and vice versa, and arranging for the travel of witnesses and company personnel from

the United States to Israel ‘‘in the midst of ongoing and

dangerous terrorist attacks’’ in the region. Raytheon’s having to incur these costs and burdens certainly satisfies the

injury requirement of Article III. See Franchise Tax Bd. of

Ca. v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 493 U.S. 331, 336 (1990) (threat

of relatively small financial injury sufficient to confer Article

III standing); Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp.,

137 F.3d 640, 648 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (‘‘The concrete cost of an

additional proceeding is a cognizable Article III injury’’).

USCA Case #03-7135 Document #832932 Filed: 06/29/2004 Page 4 of 5
5

This claimed injury, however, implicates another requirement

of Article III, namely, that it be redressable by the court.

An order compelling Ashborn to appear in arbitration

proceedings in the District of Columbia would not do anything to redress the injury Raytheon suffers as a result of

having to defend itself in the case Ashborn brought in Israel.

Unlike the plaintiff in the case upon which Raytheon principally relies, see Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. R & S Co., 176 F.

Supp. 2d 935, 939-41 (D. Minn. 2001) (issuing order to compel

arbitration and preliminary injunction to halt litigation defendants had initiated in Lebanon), Raytheon, perhaps wisely, is

not seeking to enjoin its adversary from pursuing litigation

abroad, see China Trade & Dev. Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong,

837 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 1987) (principles of comity counsel

that injunctions restraining foreign litigation be ‘‘used sparingly’’ and ‘‘granted only with care and great restraint’’); see

also General Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG, 270 F.3d 144, 160 (3d Cir.

2001); Laker Airways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 937-38 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Absent reason to believe Ashborn would drop its case in

Israel if it had to appear at the arbitration proceedings in the

District of Columbia, which Raytheon does not claim and

Ashborn clearly said it would not do, Raytheon simply cannot

demonstrate it is ‘‘likely, as opposed to merely speculative,

that [its] injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’’

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Because the relief Raytheon seeks

here will not redress the injury of which it complains, the

Company lacks Article III standing to sue.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court dismissing Raytheon’s petition is

Affirmed.

USCA Case #03-7135 Document #832932 Filed: 06/29/2004 Page 5 of 5