UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SIGMA CONSTRUCTORES, S.A.,

Petitioner,

v. No. 22-cv-1674-TSC-MAU

REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Sigma Constructores, S.A. (“Sigma”) filed a petition under the Federal

Arbitration Act (“FAA”),

, to enforce arbitration awards against Respondent

Republic of Guatemala for its alleged failure to pay Sigma for construction work. See ECF No. 1

at 1, ¶¶ 2–5. Guatemala has moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and under principles of international comity. See

generally Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 28. In the alternative, Guatemala requests that the court hold

the case in abeyance pending full disposition of related litigation concerning the awards in

Guatemala. See

at 22–25. The court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for full case

management up to and including issuance of a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive

motions, Oct. 5, 2023 Min. Order, and it was assigned to Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya.

On February 13, 2025, Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya issued a Report and Recommendation.

ECF No. 44. Judge Upadhyaya determined that jurisdiction is proper; that there is no adequate

alternate forum to enforce the arbitral award; that international comity is not available as an avenue

for dismissal under the FAA; and that Guatemala failed to meet its burden of demonstrating

Page 1 of 4 sufficient hardship to justify a stay. See generally

Accordingly, Judge Upadhyaya

recommended that the court deny Guatemala’s Motion to Dismiss and deny without prejudice its

alternative request to hold the case in abeyance.

.

Guatemala timely objected to the Report. Objections, ECF No. 48. Having considered the

parties’ briefing on Guatemala’s Motion to Dismiss, the Report, Guatemala’s objections, Sigma’s

response, and the record, the court adopts in full the Report’s recommendations.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“District courts must apply a de novo standard of review when considering objections to,

or adoption of, a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.” Means v. District of

Columbia,

(D.D.C. 2013). The court may then “accept, reject, or modify

the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge

with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see

(b).

II. ANALYSIS

Guatemala does not challenge the Report’s determination as to sovereign immunity, and

upon careful consideration of the relevant materials, the court adopts the Report’s recommendation

as to that issue. Guatemala raises two main objections to the Report: it argues that dismissal is

warranted based on forum non conveniens or, alternatively, that a stay is appropriate due to related

proceedings in Guatemala. As outlined above, Guatemala raised both arguments in its Motion to

Dismiss briefing, and Judge Upadhyaya considered and rejected each in her Report. Reviewing

each argument de novo, the court concurs with the Report.

First, Guatemala contends that Judge Upadhyaya erred in failing to account for the absence

of any “international aspect” to the dispute in considering dismissal on forum non conveniens

grounds. Objections at 7 (emphasis in original); see Mot. to Dismiss at 17−21. But as the Report

Page 2 of 4 explains, binding Circuit precedent establishes a bright-line rule that “forum non conveniens is not

available in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitral award because only U.S. courts can attach

foreign commercial assets found within the United States.” NextEra Energy Glob. Holdings B.V.

v. Kingdom of Spain,

(D.C. Cir. 2024) (quoting LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic

of Moldova,

, 876 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Contrary to Guatemala’s representations,

this rationale does not turn on whether the dispute has an “international aspect.” Objections at 7.

Because the parties do not dispute the presence of Guatemalan commercial assets in the United

States, forum non conveniens cannot provide grounds for dismissal.

Relatedly, Guatemala argues that the fact that it has already started to pay the awards in

accordance with Guatemalan judgments militates against their enforcement in the United States.

See Objections at 10−12. But the partial payment of arbitration awards cannot change the fact that

“there is no other forum in which [Sigma] could reach [Guatemala]’s property . . . in the United

States.” TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Prop. Fund of Ukraine,

(D.C. Cir. 2005).

Second, Guatemala argues that the case should be stayed pending the conclusion of

Guatemalan proceedings regarding the enforceability of the awards. See Objections at 12–14;

Mot. to Dismiss at 22–25. Without opining on the nature of those proceedings, the court agrees

with the Report that a stay is not appropriate at this juncture, as Guatemala has not met its burden

of making out a clear case of hardship or inequity. While Guatemala cites the cost of continued

litigation before this court, “being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a

clear case of hardship or inequity.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross,

, 21

(D.D.C. 2019) (cleaned up).

Page 3 of 4 III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 44. Accordingly, the court DENIES

Guatemala’s Motion to Dismiss and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE its alternative request for

a stay. ECF No. 28.

Date: December 12, 2025

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4