American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United Computer Systems, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

United Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) timely appeals the district court’s judgment confirming an arbitral panel’s denial of its claims against AT & T and Lucent Technologies, Inc (AT & T). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we recount them here only as necessary to explain our decision.

A. Governing Law.

The first issue we must decide is what law governs the parties’ arbitration. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (FAA), parties are free to enter into contracts providing for arbitration under rules established by state law rather than under rules established by the FAA. Volt Infor. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 478-79 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989); La-Pine Tech. Corp. v. Kyocera Corp., 130 F.3d 884 , 889 (9th Cir.1997). The question is one of contract interpretation: whether the parties to this contract chose federal, California, or New Jersey law to govern their arbitration.

UCS asserts that AT & T and UCS “agreed to abide by California law .” This is incorrect. First, the portion of the…

concurring.

I agree with the disposition of this case. However, because UCS’s eleventh-hour Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was patently frivolous, I would grant AT & T’s Request for Sanctions.