Opinion ID: 4530849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Venue for Enforcement

Text: Finally, the respondents argue that the district court lacked authority to enforce the arbitration summonses because WNIC did not seek enforcement in the proper district. Section 7 states in relevant part that: [I]f any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before [the arbitrators], or punish [the person or persons] for contempt [of court]. 9 U.S.C. § 7 (emphasis added). The respondents contend that the arbitrators were not sitting in the Southern District of New York because they previously had held a hearing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, the respondents contend, the statute does not permit arbitrators to sit in more than one district. We agree with WNIC that [t]he fact that the [arbitration panel] once also sat in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with another summons, is of no moment. Pet. Br. at 25. The arbitration agreement here stipulated that any arbitration would take place in New York, New York, unless the parties agreed otherwise. The original subpoenas duces tecum, with which the respondents allegedly did not fully comply, required them to appear at a hearing 31 19-225-cv Washington National Insurance Co. v. OBEX Group LLC, and Randall Katzenstein at the offices of Sills Cummins & Gross in Manhattan and to bring with them specified documents. Upon discovering the respondents' alleged noncompliance, the claimants asked the arbitration panel to issue summonses requiring the respondents to appear at a hearing and to bring with them all documents specified in the original subpoena and not previously produced. The arbitration panel did so and issued summonses commanding the respondents to appear at a hearing before them at the offices of Proskauer Rose LLP in Manhattan and to bring with them the documents at issue. The hearing proceeded as scheduled without the respondents attending at which time the arbitration panel granted the claimants leave to seek enforcement in federal or state court. Thus, for purposes of these summonses, the arbitrators were sitting in the Southern District of New York. This determination does not violate the general principle that section 7 does not permit nationwide service of process. Dynegy Midstream Servs., L.P. v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89, 91 (2d Cir. 2006). Section 7 permits enforcement of arbitration summonses in the district in which the arbitrators are sitting. 9 U.S.C. § 7 (emphasis added). That is what took place here. Whether the arbitrators were sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at another time or 32 19-225-cv Washington National Insurance Co. v. OBEX Group LLC, and Randall Katzenstein in connection with a separate summons is not relevant to our inquiry. As a result, we conclude that the district court had authority to consider and grant WNIC's petition for enforcement.