Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc.

68 F.3d 429 (1995)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
68 F.3d 429 (1995)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

CD Medical, Inc. (defendant) was a manufacturer of medical products. Lifecare International, Inc. (Lifecare) (plaintiff) independently marketed CD Medical’s products outside the United States. In 1990, Lifecare sued CD Medical in district court for breach of contract and other claims. CD Medical moved to compel arbitration, which was granted. In June 1992, Lifecare initiated arbitration, claiming in large part that CD Medical had breached certain agreements by failing to give Lifecare a specified marketing territory. The law firm White & Case represented CD Medical at the arbitration. The 17-day liability portion of the arbitration hearing occurred in February 1993, and one of the three arbitrators was attorney Craig Stein. During the hearing, Stein recounted an incident that had occurred at least 18 months before the arbitration in which he had had a scheduling dispute with opposing counsel. In April 1993, the arbitration panel indicated that it intended to rule in Lifecare’s favor. Thereafter, White & Case discovered that Stein’s prior scheduling-dispute incident with “opposing counsel” had been with a White & Case attorney not involved in the arbitration. CD Medical’s request to disqualify Stein was denied. A majority of the panel awarded damages to Lifecare. In district court, CD Medical moved to vacate the arbitration award based on Stein’s failure to disclose the incident as well as two other contacts between CD Medical and the law firm Greenberg Traurig: in 1988, CD Medical had asked Greenberg Traurig to review an agreement between CD Medical and Lifecare, and in 1990, CD Medical had interviewed the firm to possibly represent CD Medical in its dispute with Lifecare. Stein became “of counsel” at the firm in 1992, a few months before he was selected as arbitrator. The court denied CD Medical’s motion to vacate and instead confirmed the arbitration award. CD Medical appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mills, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership