Tolaram Fibers, Inc. v. Deutsche Engineering der Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau GMBH
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3565 (1991)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Tolaram Fibers, Inc. (Tolaram) (plaintiff) entered a contract regarding certain equipment with Deutsche Engineering der Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau GMBH (Deutsche Engineering) (defendant) and Barmag AG (Barmag) (defendant). The contract provided that the parties would settle disputes in accordance with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules. A dispute arose among the parties, causing Tolaram to file suit in state court. Deutsche Engineering removed the suit to the district court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Barmag then filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and stay Tolaram’s suit pending the completion of arbitration. Tolaram opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Barmag was unable to bring claims based on allegations made originally by Deutsche Engineering. Tolaram also argued that if arbitration must proceed, the arbitral tribunal should be set in Randolph County, North Carolina, because the relevant equipment was located in Ashboro, North Carolina. Barmag opposed Tolaram’s request for arbitration in Randolph County, arguing setting the arbitral tribunal in Randolph County would rewrite the contract to forbid arbitration altogether. Barmag also argued that Tolaram needed to direct the request to locate arbitration in Randolph County to the ICC, as the ICC Rules grant the arbitral tribunal the power to choose the forum for arbitration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Eliason, 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.