Flag of Peru/clipart.com 2012
An environmental contamination case brought by 35 children living near a smelting facility in Peru can move forward despite a related foreign arbitration over indemnity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled.
On November 13, a unanimous panel affirmed a denial of the defendants' motions for a mandatory or discretionary stay of the case during the arbitration. The court held that the case "relates to" arbitration, but is not "referable to" arbitration and thus a mandatory stay is not appropriate.
In August 2008, the plaintiffs filed several suits against owners and operators of the smelting facility, including Doe Run Resources Corp.; U.S. investment company The Renco Group Inc.; related companies; and executives at the companies. The cases were brought in St. Louis City Circuit Court.
In 2010, Renco filed a notice to arbitrate with Peru, seeking indemnification for third-party actions; a state-owned company previously operated the facility. In January 2011, Renco removed all 11 cases to federal court. In June 2011, the district court denied the children's motion to remand the cases.
In Renco's motion to stay the case pending the arbitration, the company claimed that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards called for a mandatory stay. The convention gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases related to international arbitrations covered by it.
In December 2011 Chief Judge Catherine Perry of the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that a mandatory stay under the convention was not required because the claims did not relate to Renco's Stock Transfer Agreement with Peru's state-owned entity, so they were not referable to arbitration. The defendants appealed.
Judge Duane Benton authored the opinion, in Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp., joined by Judge Michael Melloy and Judge Kristine Gerhard Baker of the Eastern District of Arkansas, who heard the case by designation.
Benton first addressed the removal issue, finding removal to have been proper. He relied on Fifth Circuit and Ninth Circuit rulings to find that the right to remove cases to federal court under the convention "is 'substantially broader' than that in the general removal statute. … Joining the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, this court holds that a case may be removed under [a section of the U.S. Code concerning such conventions] if the arbitration could conceivably affect the outcome of the case."
Addressing the motion to stay the case, Benton first noted that the arbitration's outcome could affect disputes in the case, including whether the pollution happened during the defendants' ownership of the facility, whether it caused the children's injuries and whether Peru is a party in the lawsuit: "While the children contend that the cases are completely independent and unrelated, either party could conceivably inject portions of the arbitration into this case. For example, if the arbitration panel found Renco completely liable for all environmental damage and injuries, the children could conceivably introduce that finding."
Benton then agreed with the plaintiffs that the Eighth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the discretionary-stay claim, which is not a final judgment, or an interlocutory order subject to appeal. He wrote that, for the Eighth Circuit to have jurisdiction over a pendant claim "the resolution of the direct claim must necessarily resolve the pendent claim … Here, the resolution of the mandatory-stay claim does not necessarily resolve the discretionary-stay claim."
Subscribe to The National Law Journal
