A U.S. tire distributor sought to shut down a Sixth Circuit bid by its ex-business partner to send their dispute to Chinese arbitrators on Monday, saying an Ohio federal judge rightly decided that he couldn’t enforce an expired arbitration clause after months of fierce litigation. Horizon Tire Inc. and its sister companies first sued tire manufacturer Shandong Linglong Tire Co. Ltd. in California federal court in May 2015 for allegedly failing to repay a $3.6 million loan and trying to cut it out of the picture by selling a Horizon-designed tire called the Crosswind directly to retailers. Linglong filed its own suit against Horizon in Ohio, and the U.S. companies voluntarily ditched their California lawsuits to advance counterclaims in the Ohio litigation. Horizon Tire and its affiliates are represented by William E. Copley and August J. Matteis Jr. of Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, and John B. Nalbandian of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. You can read more about this lawsuit, and this important issue, on Law360’s website: https://www.law360.com/articles/829127/tire-maker-s-china-arbitral-bid-rightly-denied-6th-circ-told