Case Name: SENSORDYNAMICS AG ENTWICKLUNGS-UND PRODUKTIONSGE-SELLSCHAFT, an Austrian corporation; Fraunhofergesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung Ev, an incorporated society, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MEMSCO, LLC, a California limited liability company, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-29
Citations: 407 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 08-56803
Parties: SENSORDYNAMICS AG ENTWICKLUNGS—UND PRODUKTIONSGESELLSCHAFT, an Austrian corporation; Fraunhofergesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung Ev, an incorporated society, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MEMSCO, LLC, a California limited liability company, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
SENSORDYNAMICS AG ENTWICKLUNGS—UND PRODUKTIONSGESELLSCHAFT, an Austrian corporation; Fraunhofergesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung Ev, an incorporated society, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MEMSCO, LLC, a California limited liability company, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-56803.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.
Filed Dec. 29, 2010.
Harvey M. Moore, The Moore Law Group, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.
Jeffrey Adams Robinson, Esquire, Robinson and Robinson, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
SensorDynamics appeals the district court order denying its petition to confirm a foreign arbitral partial award. We affirm.
As this court has held, "judicial review of non-final arbitration awards should be indulged, if at all, only in the most extreme cases." Pacific Reinsurance Management Carp. v. Ohio Reinsurance Carp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted). This guideline accords with the fundamental principle of federal procedure that a "court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all claims . only if the court determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b).
In the award at issue, the arbitration tribunal acknowledged that it is subject to change based on a number of factors during the arbitration. The award is therefore not final. Because the arbitration is set to move forward to a final decision settling all claims, and because denial of the interim relief sought presents no obstacle thereto, we find no reason in this case to depart from the general rule requiring that an arbitration award be final in order to be confirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.