|Help

Maryland - Chapter 9 - Interim Measures in the United States in Aid of Arbitration

Author(s): 
William M. Krulak, Jr.
Megan Jeanette McGinnis
Page Count: 
20 pages
Published: 
July, 2022
Jurisdictions: 
United States,
Maryland
Practice Areas: 
Judicial Granting of Interim Relief,
Jurisdiction and Powers of the Courts in Matters of Arbitration Generally,
Formal Requirements,
Relief and Remedies in General,
Time Limits,
Orders for Security,
Enforceability,
Delivery and Receipt of Communications,
Powers of Arbitrators,
Third Parties in Arbitral Proceedings
Author Detail: 

William M. Krulak, Jr. is a partner and member of the Commercial and Business Litigation group at Miles & Stockbridge P.C., based in Baltimore, Maryland.  He received his undergraduate education at Dartmouth College and obtained his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law.  Mr. Krulak provides litigation services for a wide variety of matters arising out of commercial and business disputes and is an experienced litigator at both the trial and appellate levels.

Megan Jeanette McGinnis is an associate in the Commercial and Business Litigation group at Miles & Stockbridge P.C.  She received her undergraduate education at the University of Missouri and obtained her JD from the University of Maryland School of Law. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. McGinnis clerked for two years at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

PDF766.75 KB

$40.00
Description: 

Originally from Interim Measures in the United States in Aid of Arbitration

PREVIEW

RELIEF PROVIDED BY COURTS

1.  Are courts in your state authorized to issue orders of attachment, injunctions or other provisional orders with respect to arbitration proceedings?

Yes. In 2002, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered a case in which the parties had agreed to arbitrate disputes over the limited issue of whether a contract was properly terminated for “cause.”  In upholding the trial court’s order compelling arbitration on that limited issue only, the appellate court expressed its concern that staying litigation on the remaining issues and claims pending resolution of the arbitration on that issue might place the plaintiff in a vulnerable position if the defendant rendered itself judgment-proof during the stay.  It accordingly noted that, to “guard against that potential scenario,” the plaintiff could present evidence to the trial court, on remand, that a preliminary injunction is warranted.” It observed, “a court can, and should, grant a preliminary injunction in an arbitrable dispute whenever an injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo pending arbitration.”  It stated, “[t]he fact that a court orders arbitration of a dispute does not ‘absolve [it] of its obligation to consider the merits of a requested preliminary injunction.’”