Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-2736
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; October 13, 2021; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Luxshare, Ltd. is the petitioner in a case before the Sixth Circuit, with ZF Automotive US, Inc., Gerald Dekker, and Christophe Marnat as respondents. The appeal arises from a district court order allowing limited discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, intended for use in international arbitration. ZF US seeks a stay pending appeal, referencing a related Supreme Court case, Servotronics v. Rolls-Royce PLC, and its own motion for immediate appeal on similar issues. The court addresses jurisdiction, emphasizing that appeals can typically only be made from final district court decisions, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1291, to avoid piecemeal litigation. Generally, discovery orders are not immediately appealable unless specific conditions are met. However, the court recognizes the distinct nature of § 1782 proceedings, where discovery orders, including those to quash subpoenas, are considered final and appealable because they resolve the discovery aspect of the underlying international dispute. This aligns with consistent rulings from other circuit courts affirming that such orders are final under § 1291. Jurisdiction is confirmed, and a motion to stay is evaluated based on four factors: 1) strong showing of likely success on the merits; 2) likelihood of irreparable injury without a stay; 3) potential injury to other parties; and 4) public interest. The first two factors are deemed most critical. While a high probability of success is not necessary, the applicant must demonstrate serious questions regarding the merits. ZF US argues likelihood of success based on the Supreme Court's certiorari in Servotronics, which could diverge from previous rulings about the application of § 1782 to private arbitration. However, ZF US must show more than mere possibility of success, which it fails to do, especially after the Supreme Court dismissed Servotronics. ZF US claims irreparable harm from potential completion of arbitration proceedings without remedy, yet it does not substantiate that minimal, nonconfidential discovery constitutes irreparable harm. With low likelihood of success on the merits, further factors do not need consideration. The court may address any potential harms if a reversal occurs. Consequently, the show cause order is withdrawn, and both the motion to stay pending appeal and the motion to expedite are denied.