Opinion ID: 4512967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preclusion and Estoppel

Text: BPS next argues that, even if the district court properly recognized the Singapore Judgment, it erred in according it preclusive effect. Specifically, BPS contends that the Singapore court neither considered relevant U.S. law nor ruled on arbitrability, and that the question of arbitrability was not necessary to support the Singapore Judgment. “[W]e . . . generally review de novo a district court’s ruling on [issue] preclusion.” Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 93 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Diorinou, 237 F.3d at 140. Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion “applies when (1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding; (3) the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the resolution of the issue was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.” Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384, 400 (2d Cir. 2011). Applying those factors here, we agree with the district 4 court’s conclusion that the Singapore Judgment precludes BPS from relitigating the existence of an arbitration agreement between it and CSCL. First, a foreign court need not consider or apply domestic law so long as there is ultimately an identity of issues. In other words, “the legal standards to be applied must . . . be identical,” but the foreign court need not apply a specific body of law. Matusick v. Erie Cty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31, 48–49 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Greene v. United States, 79 F.3d 1348, 1353 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, the legal standards applied were substantively the same and the agency principles applied by the Singapore court are in accord with New York agency law. Accordingly, there is an identity of issues. Next, the question of arbitrability was actually litigated in Singapore and was necessary to the Singapore Judgment. As explained above, BPS sought money damages from CSCL and was not simply seeking a provisional remedy when it commenced litigation in Singapore. The Singapore court dismissed BPS’s suit on the ground that it did not enter into an agreement with CSCL. Thus, the issue was actually litigated and decided in Singapore. And because the foreign action was dismissed based on the absence of a contract between CSCL and BPS, that decision was necessary to the judgment. BPS also suggests that it was not able to fully and fairly litigate in Singapore because it never obtained discovery. Not so. All the emails BPS now seeks to present to the district court were already in its possession at the time of the Singapore action as they were either to or from BPS employees. BPS was “require[d] . . . to bring forward all evidence in support of [its claim] in the initial proceeding.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 illus. 4. BPS filed briefs, argued its case, and appealed the Singapore decision. Under these circumstances, BPS had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. 5 Finally, BPS represented in the district court, while seeking a stay of the district court proceedings in favor of the Singapore litigation, that the decision of the Singapore courts would be determinative on the issue of whether CSCL could be required to arbitrate. CSCL argues that, as a result, BPS is estopped from contending that the result of the Singaporean action is immaterial to this question. Because we conclude that the district court properly accorded the Singapore Judgment preclusive effect, we need not address this issue.