Court Opinion

ID: 9839964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 19:01:12.660045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:45.528745
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-11930   Document: 48-1    Date Filed: 09/14/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
              United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 19-11930
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC,
       SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC,
       POHJOLA INSURANCE LIMITED,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
       AIG EUROPE LIMITED,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
       TAPIOLA GENERAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
       AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE SA UK BRANCH,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
       HDI GERLING UK BRANCH,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
       MSI CORPORATE CAPITAL LTD.,
USCA11 Case: 19-11930      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 09/14/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 19-11930

       as sole Corporate Member of Syndicate 3210,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
       ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE PLC,
       as subrogee of Outokumpu Oyj,
                                                        Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,
       versus
       CONVERTEAM SAS,
       a foreign corporation now known as GE Energy
       Power Conversion France SAS, Corp.,

                                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00378-KD-C
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, MARCUS, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This case is before the Court on Defendant GE Energy
       Power Conversion France’s (“GE Energy”) appeal of the district
       court’s order remanding the case to the Alabama state court in
       which it was originally filed, as well as on this Court’s recent order
USCA11 Case: 19-11930      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 09/14/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       19-11930               Opinion of the Court                         3

       directing the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be
       dismissed as moot.
              As described in greater detail in the Court’s recent show
       cause order, this case has a long and complicated history. Briefly,
       Plaintiff Outokumpu (“Plaintiff”) sued GE Energy in Alabama state
       court to recover damages related to allegedly defective motors GE
       Energy manufactured and provided to Plaintiff. GE Energy re-
       moved the case to federal district court pursuant to the United Na-
       tions Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
       Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”), 9 U.S.C. § 205. Once in fed-
       eral court, GE Energy moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims and asked
       the district court to compel arbitration based on an arbitration pro-
       vision in the motor purchase agreement. The district court granted
       GE Energy’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration pursuant
       to the Convention. See Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC v. Converteam
       SAS, No. 16-cv-00378-KD-C, 2017 WL 480716 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3,
       2017) (“Outokumpu I”).
              Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision compelling ar-
       bitration to this Court. In resolving that appeal, we agreed that the
       case was removable under § 205, but we reversed the district
       court’s order compelling arbitration based on our conclusion that
       the Convention precluded GE Energy, a non-signatory, from en-
       forcing the arbitration agreement. See Outokumpu Stainless USA,
       LLC v. Converteam SAS, 902 F.3d 1316, 1325–27 (11th Cir. 2018)
       (“Outokumpu II”). We then remanded the case back to the district
USCA11 Case: 19-11930     Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023    Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                19-11930

       court for further proceedings consistent with our decision. See id.
       at 1327.
              Given this Court’s decision that GE Energy could not en-
       force the arbitration clause—meaning that the sole federal “claim”
       had been determined and only state claims remained to be de-
       cided—Plaintiff moved to remand the action back to the Alabama
       state court. The district court granted the motion, denying GE En-
       ergy’s request that the court stay any remand pending resolution
       of GE Energy’s petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme
       Court seeking review of this Court’s reversal of the district court’s
       order compelling arbitration.
               GE Energy appealed the district court’s order remanding the
       case to state court, generating the appeal that is now before the
       Court. A few months later, the Supreme Court granted GE En-
       ergy’s previously filed certiorari petition, and it subsequently re-
       versed this Court’s decision in Outokumpu II. See GE Energy Power
       Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 140
       S. Ct. 1637, 1648 (2020) (“Outokumpu III”). Clarifying in its opinion
       that the Convention does not prohibit or conflict with a non-signa-
       tory’s enforcement of an arbitration agreement, the Supreme
       Court remanded the case back to this Court to determine whether
       GE Energy could properly compel arbitration. See id. at 1645, 1648.
       On remand, this Court held that, given the Supreme Court’s hold-
       ing that the Convention does not impose a signature requirement,
       GE Energy could indeed compel arbitration. See Outokumpu Stain-
       less USA, LLC v. Converteam SAS, No. 17-10944, 2022 WL 2643936,
USCA11 Case: 19-11930       Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023      Page: 5 of 6

       19-11930                Opinion of the Court                           5

       at *3 (11th Cir. July 8, 2022) (“Outokumpu IV”). Accordingly, we
       affirmed and reinstated the district court’s initial order compelling
       arbitration. See id. at *4.
               That left as the only remaining issue in federal court GE En-
       ergy’s present appeal of the district court’s remand order. As
       noted, the underlying case had been pending in state court since
       the district court’s order remanding it. In considering the parties’
       arguments concerning which court should handle the litigation,
       our own review of the state court record suggested that GE Energy
       had already received all the relief it seeks in this appeal. Specifi-
       cally, after this Court issued its decision in Outokumpu IV, all rele-
       vant plaintiffs and defendants in the ongoing Alabama proceeding
       stipulated that those claims on which the defendants had sought
       arbitration should be dismissed because the Eleventh Circuit had
       directed arbitration of those claims, which arbitration was to occur
       in Germany. As this was the relief that GE Energy had sought from
       the outset, we issued an order directing the parties to show cause
       why the appeal should not be dismissed as being moot.
               The parties have submitted responses to the show cause or-
       der, in which they both agree that (1) GE Energy has gotten all the
       relief it sought in its original litigation before the district court and
       (2) the present appeal is thus moot. Specifically, the claims made
       by Plaintiff that GE Energy contended were required to be arbi-
       trated pursuant to the Convention have now been dismissed by
       Plaintiff and those claims are currently being arbitrated under the
       Convention. As such, it would be “impossible for the [C]ourt to
USCA11 Case: 19-11930      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  19-11930

       grant any effectual relief” to GE Energy, even if it prevailed in the
       appeal. See Djadju v. Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1106 (11th Cir. 2022) (quo-
       tation marks omitted). See also Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Presi-
       dent of the United States, 71 F.4th 888, 891 (11th Cir. 2023) (explain-
       ing that an appeal is moot when “the issues presented are no longer
       live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome”
       (quotation marks omitted)).
               Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as moot. Given our
       conclusion that this appeal is moot, we GRANT GE Energy’s pend-
       ing motion to vacate the district court’s order remanding the case
       to state court. See Health Freedom Defense Fund, 71 F.4th at 894 (“The
       ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on
       appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss.” (quo-
       tation marks omitted)).