In Didmon v. American Arbitration Association, Inc. et al., the First Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly acted within its discretion. Here, Didmond sued Frontier Drilling, USA, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in Singapore. Frontier removed the state suit to federal district court and Didmond moved to remand. In the federal court, Didmon argued that an arbitration agreement was not enforcible. Agreeing with Didmon, the federal court remanded the suit.
After remand, Frontier moved to compel arbitration under another arbitration cluse found in Didmon's employment agreement. The trial court denied the motion, there was an appeal, and the appeallate court reversed and remanded. The trial court then dismissed Didmon's suit without prejudice, ordering that the defendants could raise limitations defenses if Didmon did not initiate arbitration within 60 days. Didmon did initiate arbitration proceedings in Singapore, where he demanded arbitration with the AAA, relying upon the arbitration agreement the federal district court found to be unenforceable. The AAA administratvely refused Didmon's arbitration claim, and then Didmon sued the AAA seeking to set aside the administrative denial and to compel the AAA to appoint an arbitrator. The AAA moved for summary judgment, contending that arbitral immunity shielded it from Didmon's suit. The trial court entered summary judgment to Frontier and the AAA.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Because the Court of Appeals rejected Didmon's procedural challenge to Frontier's intervention, and Didmon did not oppose the trial court's summary judgment, the trial court's summary judgment was affirmed.
Currently rated by 0 people