Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court Confirms Arbitration Award Against Parties Who Failed to Attend Arbitration

April 20, 2020 by Benjamin Stearns

The Northern District of Texas has confirmed an arbitration award for Wells Fargo against Energy Product Co. and Energy Transport and Logistic LLC. Neither Energy Product nor Energy Transport participated in the arbitration or filed a response to the motion to confirm. Unanswered motions to confirm an arbitration award are treated as unopposed motions for summary judgment and do not result in a default judgment. Therefore, the movant must demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wells Fargo demonstrated that there was no factual dispute here and that it was entitled to judgment. Wells Fargo was required to show that, as required by the Federal Arbitration Act, the proceedings were not “fundamentally unfair.” A “fundamentally fair hearing requires only notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence before the decision-makers, and that the decision-makers are not infected with bias.” After reviewing the record, the court determined that standard was met in this case, despite that neither Energy Product nor Energy Transport attended the arbitration hearing. The court found that they had both received fair notice of the hearing but simply chose not to attend. While all parties to an arbitration proceeding are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, “due process is not violated if the hearing proceeds in the absence of one of the parties when that party’s absence is the result of his decision not to attend.”

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Energy Prod. Co., No. 3:19-cv-02014 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2020).

District Court of Maryland Denies Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

April 15, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

The petitioner filed a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award, and the respondents moved to dismiss. Despite “the deferential standard of review” given to arbitration awards and the petitioner’s “significantly challenging road ahead,” the district court denied the respondents’ motion.

First, the court determined that the motion to vacate was timely, as the petitioner had 90 days (until January 3, 2020) to move to vacate the arbitration award under both the Federal Arbitration Act and Missouri law, which applied to the parties’ dispute.

Second, the court determined that service of the motion to vacate was timely under the FAA, as the petitioner delivered notice of its motion to vacate physically and electronically by the January 3 deadline, despite the fact that a signed summons was not included until the motion to vacate was again hand-delivered – at the request of respondents’ counsel – three days later. “Though the January 6, 2020 deadline was technically outside of the FAA’s limitations period, the Court finds that Respondents had adequate notice of this action as of January 3, 2020.”

Third, the court determined that the petitioner’s payment of the award within 30 days of the arbitration decision, as required by FINRA, did not foreclose it from pursuing its motion to vacate the award.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Stern, No. 1:20-cv-00005 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2020).

Third Circuit Addresses Interplay Between LMRA and FAA and Affirms Arbitration Award in Favor of Union Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

March 31, 2020 by Michael Wolgin

The case relates to the disposition of accrued vacation time of unionized nurses after a new employer (Prospect) assumed a collective bargaining agreement. Prospect construed the collective bargaining agreement differently than the prior employer and refused to allow more than 200% of the annual vacation time limit. An arbitrator ultimately decided in favor of the nurses’ ability to maintain the full amounts of their previously accrued vacation time, determining that the collective bargaining agreement did not curtail the nurses’ right to the full amount of their accumulated leave. The arbitrator further found that Prospect assumed the collective bargaining agreement and that Prospect, therefore, was obligated to honor the excess accumulated leave. After the district court upheld the arbitration award, Prospect appealed to the Third Circuit.

As an initial matter, the Third Circuit found that Prospect’s attempt to vacate the award was timely, rejecting the union’s argument that the state 30-day statute of limitations period authorized by the Labor Management Relations Act applied. Because Prospect was entitled to sue under the Federal Arbitration Act, which applies to collective bargaining agreements, it could rely on the lengthier three-month limitations period of the FAA.

Next, the Third Circuit rejected Prospect’s three arguments attempting to show that the award should be vacated under the FAA. First, the court rejected Prospect’s argument that the award was in excess of the arbitrator’s powers because the arbitrator failed to arguably interpret the collective bargaining agreement. The court found that the arbitrator’s ruling could be supported by a canon of contract construction and that “[w]hether or not that is the best reading of the CBA, it is certainly sufficient to uphold the arbitrator’s award.” Second, the court rejected Prospect’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal labor law pertaining to successor employers. Because the arbitrator “did not foreclose the possibility that Prospect, as a successor employer, could have, as an initial condition of employment, capped the nurses’ carry-over of vacation time” but, instead, found only that there was “no evidence that Prospect did so in time” it was not a manifest disregard of the principles of successor employment. And third, the court rejected Prospect’s argument that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in “refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy” about a similar National Labor Relations Board decision in a different case. The Third Circuit ruled that the evidentiary ruling was “not patently incorrect,” and it was “certainly not an error that deprived Prospect of a fair hearing.” The Third Circuit, therefore, affirmed the order confirming the award.

Prospect CCMC LLC v. Crozer-Chester Nurses Association, Nos. 19-1439 & 19-1440 (3d Cir. Feb. 26, 2020).

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Confirmation of Arbitration Award Over Claims of Fraud, AAA Rule-Breaking, and Lack of Jurisdiction

March 26, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award in a dispute involving a contract to obtain signatures for a Florida solar energy ballot initiative over claims that the prevailing party engaged in fraud, violated AAA rules, and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to add attorneys’ fees to his award months after the arbitration hearing.

PCI Consultants Inc. contracts with entities and organizations to obtain signatures for petitions for ballot initiatives in exchange for a fee. In 2015, PCI contracted with Floridians for Solar Choice Inc. and Solar Alliance for Clean Energy Inc. (together, the Solar parties) to obtain signatures to support a proposed ballot initiative for a solar energy amendment to the Florida Constitution. A dispute arose regarding payment. The Solar parties believed they paid PCI what it was due, but PCI withheld 217,000 signed petitions due to purported nonpayment. The dispute concerned additional expenses for a different ballot initiative concerning medical marijuana. PCI claimed the Solar parties agreed to share expenses with the medical marijuana campaign while the Solar parties disputed that they agreed to cover those expenses.

Floridians for Solar Choice sued alleging various claims in a U.S. District Court in Florida and moved to compel arbitration. The court granted that motion, and Solar Alliance subsequently appeared in the arbitration. After a three-day hearing, the single arbitrator who heard the dispute ruled in favor of the Solar parties and awarded $1,271,250 in damages. Several months later, the arbitrator also tacked on interest, costs, and fees for a total award of approximately $2,015,900.

The district court confirmed the award over PCI’s motion to vacate, agreeing that the award of interest, costs, and fees was proper. PCI appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

On appeal, PCI claimed (1) the Solar parties committed fraud during the arbitration proceedings by altering their damages analysis; (2) the Solar parties violated AAA rules that PCI claimed required the appointment of three arbitrators rather than one; and (3) the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award fees months after the arbitration hearing.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected all of PCI’s claims and affirmed the award’s confirmation.

First, PCI claimed that the Solar parties committed fraud by increasing their claimed damages in their post-hearing brief. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, noting that the requirements of the test it applied for the FAA’s fraud exception were not satisfied. The court noted that PCI cited no case holding that “a change in damages theory constitutes ‘fraud’ or ‘undue means’ under” the FAA’s fraud exception. The Solar parties’ post-hearing demand for more than $1,000,000 was supported by the record even though they initially sought less than $500,000. (The Solar parties apparently initially sought partial reimbursement for the per-signature fee of the 217,000 withheld petitions, but later successfully argued they were entitled to full reimbursement for those petitions.)

Second, the court rejected PCI’s contention that it was entitled to a three-arbitrator panel, noting that AAA rules allowed the parties to agree on one or three arbitrators and provided that if the parties were unable to agree and the claim involved more than $1 million, then the matter would be heard by three arbitrators. The facts established that PCI had agreed to a single arbitrator knowing that this case potentially involved more than $1 million. In its statement of claim, Floridians for Solar Choice demanded $500,000 to $1 million-plus punitive damages, and when Solar Alliance was added as a party it sought additional damages. Despite being on notice that the claimed damages exceeded $ million, PCI did not request a three-arbitrator panel and instead stipulated to one arbitrator.

Third, the Eleventh Circuit rejected PCI’s contention that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award fees when he did so several months after the arbitration because the arbitrator lost jurisdiction over the case 30 days after the hearing. The court noted that it has rejected the notion that arbitrators act outside their authority merely because they do not follow the AAA’s rules regarding the time for issuing decisions. It also noted that several other circuits have held that whether an arbitration award was timely is not a jurisdictional issue. In this case, the parties also stipulated that all motions for attorneys’ fees would be resolved after the hearing.

Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. Paparella, No. 18-12907 (11th Cir. Mar. 3, 2020).

California District Court Confirms Arbitration Award Properly Conducted Under ICC Rules

March 25, 2020 by Nora Valenza-Frost

The defendant sought to vacate an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator prejudiced the defendant by refusing to order discovery it requested and failed to apply California law to the analysis of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Southern District of California disagreed with the defendant’s argument and confirmed the award.

As to the defendant’s argument concerning discovery, the court recognized that the arbitrator issued a series of procedural orders specifically addressing discovery and ordering the disclosure of documents. The court found that the defendant “failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s refusal to order disclosure of certain requested documents demonstrated deprived the defendant of an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments” and concluded that the “arbitrator’s refusal to order disclosure of certain requested documents was not done in bad faith and was not so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct.”

As to the defendant’s argument that the arbitrator failed to apply California law to the award of attorneys’ fees, the court found that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority by applying ICC rules to the award of costs and fees. The parties’ agreement provided that the arbitration “shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the ICC.” California law permits the parties to incorporate by reference into their contract the terms of another document. Here, the reference to the application of the ICC rules was “clear and unequivocal.” Moreover, the parties’ agreement provided that the arbitration award “may include an award of costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements.” The court determined, “pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the award of attorneys’ fees in the arbitration award is governed by ICC Rules” and concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority.

Aeryon Labs, Inc. v. Datron World Communications, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02168 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020).