• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards / CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT FINDS PETITIONER’S DEFENSES TO CONFIRMATION ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT FINDS PETITIONER’S DEFENSES TO CONFIRMATION ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

June 9, 2016 by John Pitblado

Since a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served within 3 months after the award is filed or delivered (9 U.S.C. § 12), and Plaintiff filed its opposition to confirmation nearly four months after the award was signed by the arbitrator, the Eastern District Court of California found Plaintiff’s defenses were barred by the statute of limitations, and the award was confirmed.

Plaintiff’s action in Federal Court was stayed as the parties were compelled to arbitrate. Although Plaintiff commenced AAA arbitration, the arbitrator ordered Plaintiff to add the corporation he owned as a party and secure counsel. Plaintiff did not meet the deadline, despite numerous extensions and as a result, the arbitrator issued an order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice if Plaintiff failed to provide AAA with a letter of representation within 20 days. When Plaintiff again failed to obtain counsel, Defendants moved to confirm the arbitration award.

Plaintiff opposed confirmation because: (1) the order of dismissal did not constitute an award under 9 U.S.C. § 11(b); and (2) the arbitrator exceeded her power because she refused to hear material evidence. The Court disagreed on statute of limitations grounds, and the award was confirmed.

Dinh Nguy v. Cinch Bakery Equipment, LLC, et al., 2:13-cv-02283 (USDC E.D. Cal. May 5, 2016)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.