OPINION & ORDER Office Create Corporation (“OC”) commenced this action by filing a petition to confirm an arbitration award on October 17, 2022. Doc. 1. OC seeks a judgment confirming an arbitration award issued in its favor by the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“the arbitration tribunal”) on October 3, 2022. Id. The arbitration tribunal awarded OC: (1) $200,000 in relation to unpaid payments stemming from a licensing agreement; (2) $20,913,200 in relation to profits; (3) ¥61,987,030 and $1,398,318 in relation to OC’s legal costs; (4) $332,500 in relation to arbitration costs; (5) interest at a rate of 9 percent per annum; and (6) several forms of injunctive relief. Doc. 4-1 at 82-83 196; Doc. 1 at 12. It held the Respondents jointly and severally liable. Doc. 4-1 at 75 177. Respondents, Planet Entertainment, LLC (“Planet”) and Steve Grossman, filed a cross-petition to vacate the award on November 14, 2022. Doc. 24. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-petitions, Docs. 1, 24, as well as OC’s renewed motion for an order of attachment and temporary restraining order, Doc. 35. For the reasons stated below, OC’s petition to confirm the award is GRANTED and Respondents’ cross-motion to vacate the award is DENIED. Additionally, OC’s renewed motion for an order of attachment and a temporary restraining order is DISMISSED as moot. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background OC is a Japanese corporation that develops video games, and it is the creator of a video game franchise called “Cooking Mama.” Doc. 4-1 at 5 2. Planet is an American video game developer. Id. at 5 3. This dispute arises out of an August 2018 licensing agreement between OC and Planet. As relevant here, Grossman is the chief executive officer (“CEO”) of Planet; however, he was not a party to the licensing agreement in his individual capacity. See Doc. 27-2. In the agreement, OC licensed to Planet the right to make and sell certain video game products that incorporated OC’s Cooking Mama game. Doc. 27-2. Specifically, the agreement provided that Planet would develop, publish, and sell a version of Cooking Mama that could be played on the Nintendo Switch — a hand-held gaming platform. Id. at 2-3. The agreement provided that OC was “entitled to reject any game design elements and recommend alternative design.” Id. at 3 §4.2. In consideration of the licensing rights, Planet agreed to pay OC $300,000 pursuant to a payment schedule, in addition to royalties. Id. at 4 §§5.1, 5.2. The parties agreed that they would have the right to immediately terminate the agreement in the event of a material breach that was not cured within thirty days after written notice. Id. at 6 §12.2. As relevant here, the agreement provided that all disputes, controversies, and claims arising out of or in “relation to” the agreement would be settled by binding arbitration. Id. at 7 art. 16. The arbitration clause made clear that any award would be final and binding upon the parties. Id. The agreement had three signatories: Steve Grossman on behalf of Planet Entertainment LLC, Toshio Fujioka on behalf of Planet Entertainment Asia, and Noriyasu Togakushi on behalf of OC. Id. at 9. On March 30, 2020, more than a year after the licensing agreement was signed by the parties, OC notified Planet of its termination on the grounds of material breach. Doc. 4-1 at 26 51. Specifically, OC sent Planet a letter indicating that it had breached the agreement by selling unapproved versions of Cooking Mama for the Nintendo Switch and Play Station 4 — another gaming platform. Id. OC served a request for arbitration on Planet and Grossman on April 6, 2021. Id. at 8-9 12. Approximately two months later, on June 7, 2021, OC notified the arbitration tribunal that the parties had entered into a joint submission agreement and nominated an arbitrator.1 Id.; see also Doc. 4-2. The submission agreement listed OC, Planet, and Grossman as parties.2 Doc. 4-2 at 2. It indicated that the parties’ disputes in relation to or in connection with the agreement, including “any question of arbitrability and/or jurisdiction,” was to be finally resolved by arbitration before the tribunal. Id. at 2-3 1. Additionally, the submission agreement noted that it was expressly agreed and understood by the parties that Grossman would “not waive or otherwise affect” his ability to “contest or assert the arbitrability of the claims against him.” Id. at 3 2. Grossman denied that he was a party to the licensing agreement and objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction over him. Id.; see also Doc. 5 at 8; Doc. 26 at 9. i. Arbitration OC submitted its demand to the arbitration tribunal on June 7, 2021. Doc. 4-1 at 8-9 12. Planet requested an extension of time to answer, and it notified the tribunal that it would be filing a motion to dismiss in relation to Grossman. Id. at 9 13. Although Grossman agreed to join Planet’s nomination of an arbitrator, Mr. Stephen S. Strick, he maintained his objection to the tribunal’s jurisdiction over him. Id. Thereafter, on August 13, 2021, Planet submitted a statement of defense and counterclaim, and Grossman submitted a motion to dismiss. Id. at 9 14. The parties then submitted to the tribunal the list of issues to be determined in the arbitration. Id. at 9 15. They included a number of questions regarding the alleged breach of the licensing agreement. See generally id. Additionally, as relevant here, the parties included the following issue: Whether [Grossman] is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal with respect to the claims against him in this arbitration? Id. The tribunal held a case management conference on November 3, 2021. Id. at 11 17. Grossman maintained his objection to the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the claims against him as an individual.3 Id. at 11-12 17. The tribunal then held a hearing regarding the arbitrability of the claims against Grossman on November 30, 2021. Id. at 12 19. It issued an award on arbitrability on February 17, 2022, concluding that it had the authority to determine the issue of jurisdiction over Grossman. Id. at 12 20; Doc. 27-5
