The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which was originally hearing the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims, on the basis that the arbitration agreement invoked by the defendant did not fall within the scope of the New York Convention.

The Court determined that although the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims related to the arbitration agreement under the employment contract, the said arbitration agreement was not covered by the New York Convention. The Court observed that to fall under the Convention, the arbitration agreement (i) must arise out of a legal relationship; (ii) which is commercial in nature; and (iii) which is not entirely domestic in scope. The Court held that whilst the first condition was met as an employee signing an arbitration agreement with their employer is an example of a legal relationship formation, the second and third conditions were not met in this case. With respect to the second condition (i.e., the commercial requirement), the Court held that there must be a showing of an interstate commerce connection and that the scope of petitioner's duties with the defendant did not have such interstate commerce connection. With respect to the third condition, the Court found that the arbitration agreement was domestic in nature. The Court ruled that the sole fact of the plaintiff's non-U.S. citizenship was not sufficient to place the arbitration agreement within the scope of the Convention and that more foreign ties beyond citizenship of the parties were required to fall under the Convention. Referring to Article V(2)(b) of the Convention, the Court further held that it would be contrary to public policy if the arbitration agreement was held as falling under the Convention solely due to the plaintiff's status as a foreign national as it would vest federal courts with jurisdiction over any arbitration agreement bypassing the amount in dispute requirement ordinarily needed to obtain diversity jurisdiction. According to the Court, protecting its citizens from employment discrimination qualified as a compelling state interest and to haphazardly sweeping these claims into the jurisdiction of federal law under the guise of enforcing an international treaty raised serious concerns of an incursion into state sovereignty.