ABSTRACT
United States state courts are also divided on the issue of the availability of court-ordered interim measures in support of arbitration. Two states have adopted provisions that expressly address the question of the use of courtordered provisional remedies in support of international commercial arbitration.70 However, the weight of state authority is against providing interim relief where a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement.71 This continuing uncertainty is one of the reasons offered by the American Bar Association Committee on State International Arbitration Statutes in support of
60 Teradyne, Inc v Mostek Corp 797 F 2d 43 at 51 (1st Cir 1986). 61 Guinness-Harp Corp v Jos Schiltz Brewing Co 613 F 2d 468 at 472-73 (2d Cir 1980); Roso-Lino
Beverage Distrib, Inc v Coca-Cola Bottling Co of New York 749 F 2d 124 at 125 (2d Cir 1984). 62 Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp v Amgen, Inc 882 F 2d 806 at 811-13 (3d Cir 1989). 63 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc v Bradley 756 F 2d 1048 at 1053-54 (4th Cir 1985). 64 RGI, Inc v Tucker & Assoc, Inc 858 F 2d 227 at 230 (5th Cir 1988). 65 Sauer-Getribe KG v White Hydraulics, Inc 715 F 2d 348 at 351-52 (7th Cir 1983). 66 PMS Distributing Co v Huber & Suhner, AG 854 F 2d 355 at 356-58 (9th Cir 1988). 67 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc v Dutton 844 F 2d 726 at 728 (10th Cir 1988). 68 Ferry-Morse Seed Co v Food Corn, Inc 729 F 2d 589, at 592 (8th Cir 1984). 69 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc v Hovey 726 F 2d 1286 at 1292 (8th Cir 1984). 70 See Cal Code Civ Proc, ss 1297.91-95; Florida International Arbitration Act 1986, ss 684.16, 684.23. 71 Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. v Ruesbsamen, 139 AD 2d 323, at 531 NYS 2d 547 at 550-52 (1
st Dept. 1988) (provisional remedies are inconsistent with the New York Convention); Cooper v Ateliers de la Motobecane SA 57 NY 2d 408, at 415-16, 456 NYS 2d 728, at 731-32, 442 NE2d 1239 (1982); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc v McCollum 666 SW 2d 604 at 60809 (Tex. App, 14th Dist, 1984) (Federal Arbitration Act requires the Court to refer parties to arbitration and prohibits provisional remedies by the Court), cert denied 467 US 1127 (1985); Job Industries, Inc v Silex SpA 601 F Supp 971 (SDNY 1985) (the court cited Cooper as authority for the proposition that ‘[g]enerally, with the exception of maritime cases, provisional remedies such as attachments or compulsory bonds are not available in arbitration.’). Contrast Hull Municipal Lighting Plant v Massachusetts Municipal Wholesales Elec Co 399 Mass. 640, 560 NE 2d 140 (1987) (an injunction does not interfere with arbitration); Loeb and Loeb v Beverly Glen Music, Inc 166 Cal App 3d 1110 at 1117-18; 212 Ca Rptr 830 at 834-35 (2d Dist 1985) (an attachment ordered by court does not interfere with arbitration); Lease Plan Fleet Corp v Johnson Transp, Inc 76 Misc 2d 822; 324 NY S. d 928 (1971) (an arbitration clause does not preclude replevin); Schwartz v Leibel 249 Cal
States Supreme Court judges to argue strongly that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to a representative case to facilitate the resolution of this issue.73 To date, however, neither the United States federal legislature, nor the United States Supreme Court, have taken the necessary steps to settle the question of the availability of court-granted interim measures in aid of international arbitration.
