Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mediso Medical Equipment Developing Services, Ltd. v. Bioscan, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

December 11, 2014

MEDISO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT DEVELOPING SERVICES, LTD, Petitioner,
v.
BIOSCAN, INC., Respondent

For MEDISO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT DEVELOPING AND SERVICES, LTD., Petitioner: Akin M. Alcitepe, Gordon & Rees, LLP, Washington, DC.

Page 360

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge.

This case arises out of Mediso Medical Equipment Developing and Services, Ltd.'s petition to confirm an arbitration award issued by the Arbitration Court Attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (" Arbitration Court" ). Currently before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, ECF No. 11. For the reasons set forth below, the petitioner's motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The petitioner and the respondent, Bioscan, Inc., entered into a Collaboration and

Page 361

Original Equipment Manufacturer Agreement (" Agreement" ) on March 17, 2005 in which they " agreed to cooperate in developing a new SPECT and SPECT/CT system, which were to be sold by the Respondent in the multi-pinhole small animal SPECT imaging market." Pet. Confirm Arbitration Award (" Petition" ), at ¶ 6, ECF No. 1. The parties also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (" MOU" )" in which the petitioner appointed the respondent as its exclusive distributor over a number of its products. Id. The Agreement contained an arbitration provision, which stated: " Any dispute arising from or in connection with this [Agreement] and the MOU and their consummation shall be settled by the Court of Arbitration attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry . . . ." Id. at ¶ 8.

The petitioner claims that the respondent breached the Agreement and the MOU by " fail[ing] to fulfill payment obligations . . . , fail[ing] to meet the minimum purchase quota and fail[ing] to fulfill payment obligations related to the invoices issued by the [Petitioner.]" Award of the Arbitration Court Attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (" Arbitral Award" ) ¶ 7, ECF No. 1-4. The petitioner presented its claim to the Arbitration Court but, rather than defend against the action in arbitration, the respondent notified the Arbitration Court of its formal dissolution as of October 17, 2013 and " decline[d] to participate in the oral hearings." Id. at ¶ 13. Nevertheless, the Arbitration Court ordered the respondent to " pay the amounts as claimed" by the petitioner. Id. at ¶ 39(a). Accordingly, the Arbitration Court awarded the following itemized amounts to the petitioner:

Award in U.S. Dollars[1]

Post-Judgment Interest

1

$46.00

--

2

$915,596.42

5% per annum from August 22,

2012 until payment

3

$1,316,115.70

5% per annum from July 1,

2012 until payment

4

$658,057.85

5% per annum from August 10,

2012 until payment

5

$1,022,100.00

5% per annum from August 10,

2012 until payment

6

$76,708.78

--

7

$72,243.80

--

8

$25,554.00

--

Page 362

The Petitioner subsequently filed this action seeking to confirm the Arbitral Award pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (" New York Convention" ) and the Federal Arbitration Act (" FAA" ), 9 U.S.C. § 207 (2012). See Mem. Supp. Pet'r's Mot. Default J. (" Pet'r's Mem." ) at 2-3, ECF No. 11-1.

The respondent was a company based in, organized, and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia with its place of business located at 4590 MacArthur Boulevard, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007. See Petition ¶ 4. Thus, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondent. Although the respondent is apparently now dissolved, a case may proceed against a dissolved company. See D.C. Code § 29-312.05(b)(5) (" Dissolution of a corporation shall not . . . prevent commencement of a proceeding by or against the corporation in its corporate name." ); Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b). The respondent was properly served in this proceeding,[2] but nevertheless has failed to enter an appearance, file any responsive pleadings, or seek or receive any extension of time for filing responsive ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.