Whether the federal court improperly abstained from confirming a foreign arbitral award under the Younger doctrine

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards commonly referred to as The New York Convention 1958 Article III requires that, “Each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon,...” On August 28, 2014 Mr. Green and Ms. Dinh contracted in Indonesia for binding arbitration in Indonesia, under Indonesian law before a specific religious tribunal. The contract provides for enforcement in Indonesia, the United States and Vietnam and any other State where Mr. Green resides. In December 2018 the parties had a dispute and the matter was referred to the party appointed arbitrator in Indonesia. The Arbitrator was appointed on March 16, 2020. The arbitrator accepted his appointment and set the arbitration schedule and the parties preceded with the International Indonesian Foreign Arbitration as is required by law. Both parties were represented by counsel and on April 16, 2020 the Indonesian Tribunal issued its Partial Final Award on Jurisdiction Enforceability. On May 5, 2020 Ms. Dinh was dissatisfied with the Tribunals findings and moved the Alaska State Court to stay the ongoing Indonesian Arbitration. Mr. Green filed in United States District Court on May 15, 2020 for | confirmation and enforcement of the Indonesian Arbitral Award (Partial Final | Award on Enforceability and Jurisdiction). The Indonesian Tribunal issued the | ii , — Final Award on All Issues on May 17, 2020. After the Indonesian Arbitration was complete on May 19, 2020 the Alaska State Court issued an order to “stay” the Indonesian Foreign Arbitration conducted in Indonesia under Indonesian , law as the parties contract required. The State Court cited outdated state law (AS 09.43.020(b).1 During confirmation Ms. Dinh did not raise any of the 6 enumerable defenses required by the Convention in Article V. The District Court refused confirmation citing the Younger Doctrine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) stating, “The district court properly dismissed Green’s action as barred under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” . The questions presented are: 1. Whether it was improper for the Federal Court to abstain using the Younger Doctrine in direct contradiction to this court’s ruling in New Orleans Public In 2005 the State of Alaska fully adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. AS 09.43.300 (a) AS 09.43.300 09.43.595 govern an agreement to arbitrate made on or after January 1, 2005. The State Courts use of this statutory provision is inapplicable and is outdated law that does not apply to the parties 2014 contract to arbitrate. iii Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 8368 (NOPSD and Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs. 2. Weather is was improper for the Federal Court to abstain where the Federal Jurisdiction has original jurisdiction in foreign arbitral enforcement actions under 9 U.S. Code § 20372 3. Was it improper for the Federal Court to refuse confirmation and enforcement when none of the six enumerable defenses had not been raised? 4, Was it improper for the court to refuse res judicata when a decision has already been made on jurisdiction and on the issues? | 2 “The district courts of the United States (including the courts enumerated in section 460 of title 28) shall have original jurisdiction over such an action or proceeding...” [emphasis added] iv