Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that preclusion is not a question of arbitrability because like other affirmative defenses, it is a legal defense to the opposing party’s claims and is “itself a component of the dispute on the merits.”
• holding the claim and issue preclusive effect of prior arbitration awards are not questions of arbitrability because they, like other affirmative defenses, are legal defenses to the opposing party’s claims and are themselves a component of the dispute on the merits
• granting permission to seal documents that “played no role in [the] Court’s adjudication of the parties’ respective motions, which turned almost entirely on the Investment Agreement’s arbitration clause”
• distinguishing Olick because the judgment in Olick addressed the merits of the underlying claim
• stating arbitration award, which “ordinarily is ‘a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court.’ D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). . .”
• Belco established that claim preclusion is \not a question of arbitrability\ but rather a \legal defense to the opposing party's claims\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).