Kenneth Cesta

Plaintiff Annette Serna appealed from an order of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Serna had brought wrongful termination and related claims against Northrop, including under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. Northrop removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and then moved to compel arbitration pursuant to Northrop’s 2010 arbitration policy, which explicitly covered “future” claims between Serna and Northrop. The district court compelled arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. The arbitrator dismissed Serna’s claims under FEHA, concluding that Serna was not a qualified individual under the statute. Thereafter, the district court denied Serna’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s decision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err when it compelled arbitration given that the 2010 policy expressly stated that “any claim, controversy, or dispute, past, present, or future” between Serna and Northrop would be subject to binding arbitration. The court rejected Serna’s argument that she was no longer bound by the 2010 policy because it was “superseded” by an updated policy in 2013, finding that nothing in the 2010 policy stated that a revised policy would nullify Serna’s agreement in 2010 to arbitrate all claims, including future claims arising out of her employment with Northrop. The Ninth Circuit also found that the district court did not err when it denied Serna’s request to vacate the arbitrator’s decision on the basis that Serna was not a qualified individual under FEHA, holding that the arbitrator’s factual findings on that issue are beyond the scope of judicial review allowed by the FAA. Finally, the court found that the arbitrator did not exhibit a “manifest disregard of the law,” concluding that the arbitrator did in fact identify the relevant legal standards and applied them, and noted that “because he did so, we may not second-guess his interpretation or application of the law.”

Serna v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., No. 21-55238 (9th Cir. July 12, 2022).

Defendants Jeffrey M. Smith and Sarah A. Smith appealed from an order of the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands. The district court denied the Smiths’ motion to vacate the arbitration award entered against them, concluding that the arbitrator made a good faith attempt to interpret and apply the agreement between the parties, which included the arbitration clause. The Third Circuit affirmed.

The Smiths entered into an agreement, which included an arbitration provision, with plaintiff Bayside Construction LLC wherein Bayside was to perform repair work on the Smiths’ home located on St. Thomas, in the Virgin Islands. The Smiths declared Bayside in default for defects in the repair work but did not allow Bayside to cure the alleged defaults before declaring default, as required under the agreement. Bayside filed a demand for arbitration for amounts due and the Smiths filed a counterclaim for alleged overpayment for work performed. The arbitrator concluded that the Smiths had breached the agreement and entered an award in favor of Bayside, which included a modest reduction for “shoddy” work to the amount that Bayside had claimed.

The Smiths argued that the arbitrator “manifestly disregarded” Virgin Islands law and exceeded his powers by issuing an award to Bayside. The Third Circuit rejected the Smiths’ arguments and agreed with the district court’s finding that, while the arbitrator did not cite Virgin Islands law in the award, it was consistent with authority in the territory addressing both the “opportunity to cure” before terminating an agreement and the application of set-offs for defects in construction cases. The Third Circuit concluded it was “immaterial” that the arbitrator cited an arbitration rule rather than case law from the Virgin Islands in the award since the award would have been no different under Virgin Islands law. The Third Circuit also held that since the award was consistent with authority in the Virgin Islands, the arbitrator had not “manifestly disregarded” the law or the parties’ agreement, and did not exceed his powers.

Bayside Construction LLC v. Smith, No. 21-2716 (3d Cir. July 8, 2022).