## Facts

- Toyo, Continental, and Yokohama formed GTY Tire Co., a general partnership to manufacture truck and bus radial tires for each partner to distribute.
- The Partnership Agreement required arbitration of disputes under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules.
- The incorporated ICC Rules allowed parties to seek interim or conservatory measures from a competent judicial authority without waiving the arbitration agreement.
- As the partners moved to dissolve the venture and distribute assets, Toyo disputed the dissolution and asset distribution process during the wind-down.
- Toyo demanded ICC arbitration and sought interim injunctive relief both from the ICC and in federal district court to prevent dissolution and asset distribution pending arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court lacks authority to consider preliminary injunctive relief in aid of arbitration when the arbitration agreement incorporates rules (ICC Rules) that permit parties to seek interim judicial measures.
2. Whether Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. categorically bars interim injunctive relief where the arbitral tribunal can also grant interim relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying Toyo’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred by treating Simula as a categorical bar to interim judicial relief.
- Because the Partnership Agreement incorporated ICC Rules expressly permitting applications to courts for interim measures, the district court had authority to consider Toyo’s injunction motion.
- The court did not decide whether Toyo satisfied the preliminary-injunction factors, leaving that merits determination to the district court on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may consider and, if warranted, grant preliminary injunctive relief in aid of arbitration when the parties’ arbitration agreement (including incorporated arbitral rules) preserves access to courts for interim or conservatory measures.
- Incorporation of arbitral rules is a contractual choice that courts must enforce under the Federal Arbitration Act according to the agreement’s terms.
- Simula does not establish a blanket prohibition on judicial interim relief; its effect depends on the parties’ contract and whether it authorizes recourse to courts for interim measures.
- Interim relief may be appropriate to preserve the status quo so arbitration can provide effective relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that where an arbitration agreement incorporates ICC Rules allowing parties to seek interim judicial measures, the district court has authority to consider a motion for a preliminary injunction pending arbitration and must evaluate the usual Rule 65 factors rather than deny relief solely based on the existence of arbitral interim-relief power.


Toyo Tire Holdings of Ams., Inc. v. Cont'l Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2010)