On the same day on which it rendered its decision on the remand of the case between Dahiya and the Vessel Interests, the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Dahiya's motion to dismiss the application of the Vessel Interests to confirm the award rendered in India between the parties. The award was in favor of Dahiya, to whom it had granted a sizeable compensation. Dahiya sought, however, to stop confirmation in what the Court described as "an increasingly quixotic bid to win greater damages in the United States". The Court held that summary judgment was appropriate here. In particular, the award was subject to confirmation pursuant to the New York Convention, under which the Court was a court of secondary jurisdiction which could only deny confirmation on the seven exclusive Convention grounds, none of which were present here. Dahiya's claim that the extension of the award to nonparties to the employment Deed and the arbitration agreement therein precluded summary judgment failed: first, because of an earlier state court decision which had held that Dahiya was required to arbitrate his claims against all of the Vessel Interests; and, second, because the doctrine of equitable estoppel provided that an entity need not be a formal signatory to enforce an agreement to arbitrate in certain circumstances. Further, the Court's confirmation of the award was binding on all parties to this litigation; and this binding nature precluded Dahiya's efforts to seek some other result. The Court therefore granted a permanent injunction to bar Dahiya from any further attempts to relitigate the award or the underlying controversy. The second decision granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.