Legal Opinion
KIM-C1, LLC v. Valent Biosciences Corp.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided November 22, 2010No. 1:10-cv-591 AWI MJSPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD
(Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 30, 34)
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief Judge.
This case stems from a Licensing Agreement (“the Agreement”) between Petitioner Kim-Cl, LLC (“Kim”) and Respondent Valent Biosciences Corp. (“Valent”). 1 In 2010, the parties attended an arbitration. Kim seeks to have the arbitration award confirmed under 9 U.S.C. § 9, that is, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Valent seeks to vacate the arbitration award. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Valent’s motion…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Chiron Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., a New Jersey CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Aubie BALTIN; Gwilda Baltin, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. ALARON TRADING CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- MACTEC, Inc. v. GorelickCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Swenson v. Bushman Investment Properties, Ltd.District Court, D. Idaho · 2012
- A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint PaulConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
- California Spine and Neurosurgery Institute v. Microsoft Corporation, et al.District Court, N.D. California · 2026