Hydra-Pro Dutch Harbor Inc. v. Scanmar As

MEMORANDUM

The district court erred when it granted summary judgment for Scanmar on Scan-mar’s counterclaims (the “Counterclaims”) based on the outcome of the Norwegian arbitration proceeding (the “Arbitration”). Washington law controls whether the Arbitration has preclusive effect. See Jacobs v. CBS Broad., Inc., 291 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.2002). Under Washington law, issue preclusion — commonly called collateral es-toppel — requires the party seeking preclusion to establish that:

Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wash.2d 299 , 96 P.3d 957, 961 (2004). Here, the parties do not dispute that the Arbitration resulted in a judgment on the merits. However, Scanmar fails to demonstrate the remaining three elements.

First, Scanmar cannot show that the Arbitration decision addressed issues identical to those raised by the Counterclaims. See Regan v. McLachlan, 163 Wash.App. 171 , 257 P.3d 1122, 1127 (2011). Further, we reject Scanmar’s argument that the Arbitration decision’s factual findings establish the Counterclaims, regardless of whether the legal issues were identical. Even if factual findings were to preclude further litigation of those facts under Washington…