Opinion ID: 789753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Supplemental Remedy

Text: 23 After denying enforcement of the award, the District Court held that Decker and Danziger were disqualified from any future arbitration between EB and EUSA, that EB could reappoint Layton as its arbitrator, and that if the party-appointed arbitrators fail to agree on a third arbitrator, they should select one from a list maintained by the London Court of International Arbitration. See Encyclopaedia Universalis, 2003 WL 22881820, at . We find that the District Court erred in specifying these procedures. 24 [T]he confirmation of an arbitration award is a summary proceeding, Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim, 126 F.3d at 23, and the role of a district court in reviewing an award under the New York Convention is strictly limited, 5 Compagnie Noga, 361 F.3d at 683. Here, the District Court lacked authority to go beyond refusing confirmation of the award by dictating how the parties should proceed after enforcement was denied. Consequently, we vacate the portion of the District Court's judgment that purports to regulate a subsequent arbitration.