MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. v. ROHM Co. Ltd.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Case No. 21-cv-08697-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO
v. COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
ROHM CO. LTD., INJUNCTION AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1,
This Court is once again asked to enforce a binding arbitration agreement between MaxPower and Rohm.1 See Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., 2021 WL 822932 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021); MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC, 2021 WL 5027861 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2021). Once again, MaxPower’s request for relief is granted.2 And because Rohm appears to be intentionally and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings in the face of an agreement to arbitrate, Rohm is ordered to explain why it should not be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rohm Japan, and Rohm’s argument to the contrary is frivolous. The contract between MaxPower and Rohm designates arbitration in Santa Clara County, California as the proper forum for any dispute arising out of or in relation to the