International Arbitration

International Arbitration Information by Aceris Law LLC

  • International Arbitration Resources
  • Search Engine
  • Model Request for Arbitration
  • Model Answer to Request for Arbitration
  • Find International Arbitrators
  • Blog
  • Arbitration Laws
  • Arbitration Lawyers
You are here: Home / Arbitration Jurisdiction / Stay of Judicial Proceedings Pending Arbitration: Rogers, Burgun, Shahine and Deschler, Inc. v. Dongsan Construction Co. ltd. US District Court for the Southern District of New York (1984)

Stay of Judicial Proceedings Pending Arbitration: Rogers, Burgun, Shahine and Deschler, Inc. v. Dongsan Construction Co. ltd. US District Court for the Southern District of New York (1984)

05/06/2017 by International Arbitration

Judicial Proceedings Pending Arbitration

In this case, Dongsan (Claimant) subcontracted RBSD (Respondent) services for developing part of the design of a hospital in Saudi Arabia. The Claimant agreed to pay 20% of the 2,5 million dollar fee in advance of Respondent’s performance. Respondent provided Claimant a Letter of Guarantee to secure the full amount of the advancement payment.

The Subcontract contained an arbitration clause, selecting the ICC Rules and specifying a seat of arbitration in Paris.

When the amount secured by the Letter of Guarantee was down to approximately 150,000 dollars, a dispute arose with respect to RBSD’s performance. Claimant notified Respondent of its intent to complete certain of RBSD’s obligations itself, effecting a partial termination of the Subcontract, and indicating that it would not pay the remaining balance under the Subcontract.

RBSD filed a complaint before the Southern District Court of NY alleging breach of contract by Dongsan and seeking 900,000 dollars owed by Dongsan, and a preliminary injunction prohibiting Dongsan from calling the Letter of Guarantee. The Court entered a temporary restraining order against Dongsan enjoining it from calling the letter of guarantee. Subsequently, Dongsan filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration.

The Court granted Dongsan’s motion to stay the proceeding pending arbitration. However, it held that the fact that the dispute was to be arbitrated did not deprive the Court of its authority to provide provisional remedies. RBSD’s motion was granted and Dongsan was enjoined from calling the Letter of Guarantee at least until the proper arbitral award was rendered.

Indeed, under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act, courts shall enforce an agreement to arbitrate and stay judicial proceedings pending the arbitration.

It was clear that the dispute fell within the arbitration clause, which was not optional, contrary to RBSD’s allegations, and Dongsan had not waived its right to arbitrate the dispute.

The court assigned a 30-day period for Dongsan to initiate proceedings, otherwise the court would find its conduct tantamount to a waiver.

Filed Under: Arbitration Jurisdiction, Arbitration Procedure, Arbitration Rules, Court of Arbitration, ICC Arbitration, International Arbitration Law, New York Convention, Saudi Arabia Arbitration

Search Arbitration Information

Hong Kong Sets Aside USD 481.6 Million Award: The Duty to Address the Defence Actually Advanced

Banesco v. Panama: ICSID Jurisdiction, Foreign-Controlled Companies and Regulatory Ambiguity

Perjury and False Evidence in International Arbitration

Andraous v. Netherlands: Share Ownership, Employment Rights and the Definition of an Investment

NBA Arbitration: A Player’s Guide to Protecting Your Contract, Compensation, and Career

Legacy Vulcan, LLC v. United Mexican States: Regulatory Arbitrariness and the Limits of Investment Treaty Compensation

DIFC Court of Appeal Sets Aside DIAC Award for Procedural Unfairness in Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006

Can Arbitrators Ask Artificial Intelligence for Its View on Legal Issues?

Security for Costs in Investment Arbitration

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to LCIA Arbitration

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to SIAC Arbitration under the 2025 Rules

Who Bears Responsibility for AI in Arbitration? The EU AI Act and the Role of Arbitral Institutions

Foreign-Seated Corporate Arbitration Clauses in Italian Companies

No Easy Exit from an Arbitral Award

© 2012-2026 · IA