Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Uranex
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
451 F. Supp. 1044 (1977)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1973, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) (plaintiff), a public utility company, entered a contract with Uranex (defendant), a French groupement d'interet economique that marketed uranium. The contract provided for Uranex to deliver uranium concentrates to CP&L. The contract also provided that the parties would submit disputes to arbitration in New York. Following a dramatic rise in the price of uranium fuel in the world market, Uranex could not deliver at the contract price and requested renegotiation. In 1977, CP&L filed a lawsuit in the district court against Uranex. CP&L also proceeded ex parte to attach an 85-million-dollar debt owed to Uranex by Homestake Mining Company (Homestake), a San Francisco–based corporation that marketed uranium in the United States. The debt due to Uranex from Homestake had no relationship to the litigation except as a potential source for CP&L to satisfy any arbitration award or judgment. At the time CP&L filed the lawsuit, CP&L sought to compel Uranex to enter arbitration, but Uranex voluntarily entered arbitration. The arbitration proceedings began in New York as the district court contemplated the lawsuit. Both parties agreed that the district court lacked the power to adjudicate the merits of the dispute due to the arbitration agreement. However, CP&L asked the district court to stay the action and maintain the attachment in order to protect any award that CP&L might receive in the New York arbitration. CP&L asserted that Uranex lacked assets in the United States to satisfy a judgment. Uranex, however, argued that it would be inconsistent with the New York Convention for the district court to maintain the attachment pending the arbitration, citing McCreary Tire & Rubber Co. v. CEAT, S.p.A.)
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peckham, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.