## Facts

- Trammochem chartered a vessel from A.P. Moller (Maersk Gas Carriers) and Igloo Shipping A/S to transport cargo from Houston, Texas to Antwerp, Belgium, under a charter party requiring arbitration in New York City.
- To prepare the vessel in Houston, the vessel owners hired Inert Gas Systems, Inc., which retained Dynegy Midstream Services, LP (DMS) to provide facilities and supplies, including a shore-flare system.
- After arrival in Belgium, the cargo was found contaminated; an expert report identified DMS’s shore-flare system as the most likely cause.
- Trammochem and the vessel owners arbitrated their dispute in New York; the vessel owners sought to bring DMS into the arbitration, but DMS declined to participate.
- The arbitration panel issued a subpoena under FAA § 7 directing DMS to produce documents and electronic data in Houston concerning the shore-flare system; the subpoena was served on DMS’s registered agent in Texas.
- DMS did not comply. The vessel owners moved in the Southern District of New York to compel compliance; the district court granted the motion despite DMS’s lack of New York contacts.

## Issues

1. Whether an order compelling compliance with an arbitral subpoena in a stand-alone FAA § 7 proceeding is a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when it resolves the only matter before the district court.
2. Whether FAA § 7 authorizes nationwide service of process so that a federal court in New York may compel compliance by a Texas nonparty with no contacts with New York.
3. Whether FAA § 7 permits “documents-only” subpoenas to nonparties without requiring their appearance before the arbitrators.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction because, in a stand-alone § 7 subpoena-enforcement proceeding, an order compelling compliance is final when it disposes of the entire proceeding.
- The court reversed the district court’s order compelling DMS to comply, holding the FAA does not authorize nationwide service of process and the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over DMS.
- The court declined to decide whether § 7 authorizes documents-only subpoenas to nonparties.

## Legal Principles

- A district court order resolving the only dispute in an independent FAA § 7 subpoena-enforcement proceeding is a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- FAA § 7 does not provide nationwide service of process; absent explicit statutory authorization, service and enforcement of arbitral subpoenas track the territorial limits applicable to federal court subpoenas.
- A federal court may not compel a nonparty’s compliance with an arbitral subpoena without a valid basis for personal jurisdiction consistent with the applicable service rules and due process.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit treated the subpoena-enforcement order as immediately appealable, then held that FAA § 7 does not permit nationwide service of process; because DMS lacked New York contacts, the Southern District of New York could not compel compliance with the arbitral subpoena, and the court left unresolved whether § 7 permits documents-only subpoenas to nonparties.


Dynegy Midstream Servs., LP v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006)