Application to Confirm Archives - The Arbitration Law Forum The Arbitration Law Forum

Archive for the ‘Application to Confirm’ Category

Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part III)

November 12th, 2024 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitrability, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Grounds for Vacatur, Petition to Vacate Award, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, Section 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact No Comments »

In our October 7, 2024, post, “Can a Court under Section 10(a)(4) Overturn an Award Because it was Based on a Clear Mistake of Historical Fact or a Conceded Nonfact?”, we discussed UpHealth Holdings, Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Sys. PVT, No. 24-cv-3778, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024), which granted partial vacatur of an arbitration award because it was based on a “nonfact.” Our October 18, 2024 post, Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part I), identified five questions relating to UpHealth, which were designed to shed further light on the case and the vacatur standard on which the Court relied.

We answered the first three of the five in our October 18 and 21, 2024, posts:

What is the difference, if any, between a “clear mistake of historical fact” and a “conceded nonfact?”
What is or should be required to establish a “clear mistake of historical fact” or a “conceded nonfact?”
Assuming Section 10(a)(4) authorizes courts to vacate awards based on a “clear mistake of historical fact” or a “conceded nonfact,” did the UpHealth district court err by holding that the award against Damodaran was based on a nonfact?

This post—which assumes familiarity with our October 7, 18, and 21, 2024 posts—answers the fourth question: “Assuming that the district correctly applied the “conceded nonfact” standard, does it comport with the FAA?”

We think the answer is no, unless the standard is construed to authorize vacatur in one of the two alternate situations only. First, where: (a) the parties clearly and unmistakably agree to the existence or nonexistence of a material fact, whether by stipulation or otherwise; (b) the arbitrator makes an award that clearly and unmistakably contravenes, or is otherwise inconsistent with, that agreement; and (c) the arbitrator does not even arguably interpret or apply the parties’ agreement about the existence or nonexistence of the material fact.
Second, and alternatively, where: (a) there is not even a barely colorable basis to conclude that the arbitrator’s material, mistaken finding of fact was based on ambiguous or disputed evidence; and (b) in making his or her award the arbitrator strongly relied on the clearly mistaken finding of fact. Of these two scenarios, we believe the first comports more closely with the FAA than the second.

The UpHealth Appeals to the Seventh Circuit

One brief update before we proceed: On October 24, 2024, UpHealth, not surprisingly, filed a notice of appeal from the order vacating the award. On November 6, 2024, Damodaran filed a notice of cross-appeal, appealing the district court’s order to the extent that that it remanded UpHealth’s claims against him to the arbitration panel, rather than terminating them.

Discussion: UpHealth

Assuming that the UpHealth District Correctly Applied the Clear Mistake of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfact Standard, does it Comport with the FAA?

Our October 7, 18, and 21, 2024, posts pointed out a number of reasons why the clear mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact standard, particularly as applied by UpHealth, violates, or may violate, the FAA. First, the FAA does not authorize courts to review an arbitrators’ findings of fact, no matter how “silly” or “improvident.” See, e.g., Major League Baseball Players Assoc. v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509-10, 511 (2001). The Second Circuit and certain other courts have rejected “manifest disregard of the facts” as a basis for vacating an arbitration award, see, e.g., Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 1998)), and the Seventh Circuit (with a couple of narrow exceptions discussed in our October 7, 2024, post) has rejected even manifest disregard of the law as a ground for overturning an award. Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 660 F.3d 281, 284 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing George Watts & Son, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 248 F.3d 577 (7th Cir.2001)).

As we saw with respect to the UpHealth court’s application of the standard, when a Court purports to determine whether an arbitrator’s finding of fact is a clear mistake of historical fact—i.e., a fact finding that is contradicted by unambiguous or undisputed evidence to the contrary—the Court is required to review the arbitrator’s fact finding, and may inadvertently second-guess the arbitrator on a matter that is supposed to be within his or her discretionary ambit.
That is how the UpHealth court, in the author’s opinion, erred in applying the standard. (See October 21, 2024, post.) The Court made a determination about the ambiguity of evidence and its disputed or undisputed nature through the same lens as it would have made those determinations in cases that do not involve arbitration. (See October 21, 2024, post.)
Second, to the extent that the clear mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact standard focuses on whether the arbitrator made a clear mistake of fact, and not on whether the arbitrator did or didn’t do his or her job by at least arguably interpreting the parties’ agreement or concessions about the facts, then it is not aligned with the only form of outcome review (other than public policy review) that has been authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court: manifest disregard of the agreement. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 566-70 (2013); Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 671-72, 676-77 (2010).

The principal purpose of the FAA, and certainly that animating FAA review of arbitration awards, is to enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 682-83; Wise v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, 450 F. 3d 265, 269 (7th Cir. 2006). As the Seventh Circuit has aptly put it:

[T]he question for decision by a federal court asked to set aside an arbitration award . . . is not whether the arbitrator or arbitrators erred in interpreting the contract; it is not whether they clearly erred in interpreting the contract; it is not whether they grossly erred in interpreting the contract; it is whether they interpreted the contract. If they did, their interpretation is conclusive. By making a contract with an arbitration clause the parties agree to be bound by the arbitrators’ interpretation of the contract. A party can complain if the arbitrators don’t interpret the contract—that is, if they disregard the contract and implement their own notions of what is reasonable or fair. A party can complain if the arbitrators’ decision is infected by fraud or other corruption, or if it orders an illegal act. But a party will not be heard to complain merely because the arbitrators’ interpretation is a misinterpretation. Granted, the grosser the apparent misinterpretation, the likelier it is that the arbitrators weren’t interpreting the contract at all. But once the court is satisfied that they were interpreting the contract, judicial review is at an end, provided there is no fraud or corruption and the arbitrators haven’t ordered anyone to do an illegal act.

Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 814 F.2d 1192, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) (Posner, J.); see, e.g., American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., 103 F.4th 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.) (quoting Hill, 814 F.2d at 1194-95; citing Garvey, 532 U.S. at 509-10); Oxford, 569 U.S. at 571-73.

The same should be true of the clear mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact standard. If there is to be vacatur of an award based on a mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact it should be because the arbitrator did not do his or her job by at least arguably interpreting and applying the parties’ agreement or concessions concerning the facts.

In situations where the parties have agreed to, or conceded, facts that clearly evidence a clear mistake of historical fact, then that resolves both the problem associated with Courts purporting to review the arbitrators’ evidentiary findings as well as the problem associated with the vacatur standard of review not being grounded in the enforcement of the parties’ agreement. No judicial review of the sufficiency or existence of evidence supporting a fact finding is necessary or warranted when the issues are whether the parties agreed to that finding of fact and whether the arbitrators even arguably interpreted that agreement.

Those issues concern whether the arbitrators’ award is at least arguably an interpretation of the parties’ agreement, limiting judicial review to the scope approved by the U.S. Supreme Court: did the arbitrators at least arguably interpret the parties’ agreement? See Oxford, 569 U.S. at 566-70.

Stolt-Nielsen lends support to the argument that the standard should be limited to situations where the historical fact or nonfact was the subject of party agreement or concession. The U.S. Supreme Court there determined that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by not giving effect to the parties’ stipulation that their agreement was silent on the issue of class arbitration. Instead of determining what default rule governs consent to class arbitration when the parties’ agreement is silent on that score, the arbitrators ruled that extracontractual considerations of public policy required class arbitration. See Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 671-72, 676-77. (See October 18, 2024, post.)

Third, the way the UpHealth Court construed and applied the standard effectively allows the court, applying a de novo standard of review, to determine whether the facts establishing the mistake were unambiguous and undisputed. That is troublesome for essentially the same reasons: it invites judicial review of arbitral fact finding rather than limited judicial review of whether the parties agreed or conceded the existence of facts contrary to those found by the arbitrator and, if so, whether the arbitrator at least arguably did his or her job by interpreting and applying that agreement or concession.

Two Proposals for Aligning the Mistake of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfact Standard with the FAA

There are at least two alternative ways that the historical fact/conceded nonfact standard can be modified so that it can be applied in a way that at least arguably comports with the FAA. The first of these could not have been applied to the UpHealth facts, while the second of these could have been applied to those facts, but its proper application to those facts would, we think, result in a different outcome in UpHealth: denial of Damodaran’s motion to vacate. Of the two, we think the first is more closely aligned with the FAA than the second.

Proposal 1: The Facts Showing the Mistake Must be Agreed or Conceded

The first proposal fully addresses each of the weaknesses inherent in UpHealth’s interpretation and application. It would authorize vacatur for clear mistake of fact or conceded nonfact only where: (a) the parties clearly and unmistakably agree to the existence or nonexistence of a material fact, whether by stipulation or otherwise; (b) the arbitrator makes an award that clearly and unmistakably contravenes, or is otherwise inconsistent with, that agreement; and (c) the arbitrator does not even arguably interpret or apply the parties’ agreement about the existence or nonexistence of the material fact.

This proposed standard removes the Court entirely from evaluating, even in a very deferential fashion, the basis for the arbitral fact finding at issue. It requires the court to determine, by clear and unmistakable evidence, that: (a) the parties have reached an agreement or concession about the existence or nonexistence of the fact claimed to be the subject of the arbitrator’s alleged, clear mistake, and (b) the award contravenes, or is otherwise inconsistent with, that agreement or concession. It then, as a safeguard, and consistent with the manifest disregard of the agreement standard, requires the Court to determine whether the arbitrator even arguably interpreted or construed the agreement or concession concerning the existence or nonexistence of the fact the challenging party claims the arbitrator mistook.

The standard therefore confines judicial review to the parties’ agreement and accords the same deference to interpretation and application of the agreement that courts faithfully following the manifest disregard of the agreement standard accord to arguable interpretations or applications of the parties’ agreement by the arbitrator.

It would, however, have had no application to the facts in UpHealth. In UpHealth, the parties did not agree to or concede the existence or nonexistence of any of the facts the challenging party claimed were the subject of the arbitrator’s alleged mistake. Therefore, a Court employing such a standard would conclude that there was no basis to vacate the UpHealth award based on an alleged mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact.

Proposal 2: No Barely Colorable Basis to Conclude that the Arbitrator’s Clearly Mistaken Finding of Fact was Based on Ambiguous or Undisputed Evidence

Proposal 2 is slightly more forgiving than Proposal 1 because it permits some extremely deferential review of the question whether the arbitrator’s fact finding was contradicted by, or otherwise inconsistent with, unambiguous or undisputed evidence to the contrary. While it could have been applied to the facts of UpHealth, the outcome it would yield would have been denial of the motion to vacate. (See October 21, 2024 post.)

Proposal 2 would allow vacatur where: (a) there is not even a barely colorable basis to conclude that the arbitrator’s material, mistaken finding of fact was based on ambiguous or undisputed evidence; and (b) in making his or her award the arbitrator strongly relied on the clearly mistaken finding of fact. It therefore limits any review of the arbitrator’s fact finding to that necessary to determine whether there was even a barely colorable basis to conclude that the arbitrator based the mistaken finding fact on ambiguous or undisputed evidence. If there is a barely colorable basis on which to conclude that the arbitrator’s mistaken fact finding was based on ambiguous or undisputed evidence, then vacatur is not permitted. Like UpHealth’s articulation of the standard, it requires that the arbitrator strongly relied on the clearly mistaken finding of fact.

Proper application of Proposal 2 to the UpHealth facts would, the author believes, lead to denial of Damodaran’s motion to vacate. Even though the UpHealth Court concluded that there was no basis in the record for the Damodaran finding, the author believes that there was a barely colorable basis on which to conclude that the Damodaran finding was supported by ambiguous or disputed evidence.

As explained in the October 21, 2024 post, the arbitrators did not pull their finding about Damodaran out of a proverbial hat. As the Court explained, the arbitrators “based [their] findings on ‘[a witness’s] evidence that at [the] EGM the minority shareholders voted against the Claimant’s designees being appointed to the Board.’” Slip op. at 21 (quoting Award at ¶¶ 360-61). That witness, the Court said, “did not identify which minority shareholders were present. . . and noted that the vote was limited to ‘Glocal Healthcare shareholders in attendance’” at the meeting. Slip op. at 21 (quoting Dkt. 48-1, Ex. 2 at ¶ 121).

The witness further testified that the minority shareholders voted against the appointment of the designees and the minority shareholders in attendance voted. Damodaran was a minority shareholder. There was therefore at least an arguable or barely colorable basis for the arbitrators to have drawn the inference that Damodaran was among the minority shareholders who were present and voted.

The Court’s conclusion that it could “only surmise from the record that the Tribunal assumed Damodaran was present with the rest of the Respondents at the EGM without ever receiving evidence that he was in fact present[,]” slip op. at 21, would have been warranted and meaningful if the FAA required arbitrators to have direct and conclusive evidence to support each fact finding in their awards. But arbitration awards are not subject to that kind of exacting, rigorous standard of review.

The Court did not believe the evidence was sufficient here because: (a) the witness did not identify the minority shareholders that were present; and (b) the evidence left open the possibility that not all minority shareholders were present and voted. While the evidence on Damodaran was arguably equivocal, the arbitrators nevertheless drew the inference that Damodaran was present.

Arbitrators limitless (or nearly limitless) leeway in terms of their fact-finding ability, and who knows what other sources of information the arbitrators gleaned from the hearings that led them to draw the inference that Damodaran was present and voted at the meeting against the appointment of the designees. Under the circumstances, there was at least a barely colorable or arguable basis for the arbitrators to draw the inference that Damodaran was present and voted at the meeting against the appointment.

The evidence was therefore ambiguous in the sense that there was at least a barely colorable basis for interpreting it more than one way, and one of those ways was to conclude Damodaran was present at the meeting and voted against the appointment of designees. The arbitrators’ Damodaran fact finding was therefore not a clear mistake of historical fact or a conceded nonfact.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance- or reinsurance-related, and other, matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

Can a Court under Section 10(a)(4) Overturn an Award Because it was Based on a Clear Mistake of Historical Fact or a Conceded Nonfact?

October 7th, 2024 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Irrational, Award Vacated, Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, LMRA Section 301, Petition to Vacate Award, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Public Policy, Vacatur, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact 3 Comments »

nonfact | clear historical fact Can a court vacate an award because it was based on a clear mistake of historical fact or on a conceded nonfact? Some might consider asking that question to be akin to using fighting words, but it is one that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may ultimately answer if an appeal of the UPHealth Holdings, Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Sys. PVT, No. 24-cv-3778, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024) is taken.

In vacating in part the award in that case the UpHealth district court took a rather bold step, albeit one that has support in two circuit court labor arbitration cases (decided in 1974 and 1985), Electronics Corp. of Am. v. International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, 492 F.2d 1255 (1st Cir. 1974); National Post Office, Mailhandlers, Watchmen, Messengers & Grp. Leaders Div, Laborers Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 751 F.2d 834, 843 (6th Cir. 1985) (Stewart, Associate Justice (ret.), sitting by designation), and at least one district court case, decided under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) in 2002, Mollison-Turner v. Lynch Auto Grp., No. 01 6340, 2002 WL 1046704, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2002). It vacated in part an award because the Court determined the arbitrators strongly relied on a conceded nonfact. Whether UpHealth will withstand appellate review is unclear at this juncture, but at least for the time being, it provides award challengers with some additional support for vacating a very narrow class of questionable but rare awards that feature the kind of unusual circumstances present in UpHealth, Electronics Corp., National Post Office, and Mollison-Turner. Each of these cases presented a situation where an award was based on a clear mistake of historical fact, a conceded nonfact, or both.

This post reviews what transpired in UpHealth. In one or more later posts we shall subject the Court’s decision to analytical scrutiny and consider whether, and if so, to what extent, the notion that an award can be vacated based on a mistake of historical fact or a conceded nonfact will likely gain traction in future cases. We may also consider whether, and if so, to what extent, vacatur on that ground comports with Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) principles, and discuss in more detail Electronics Corp., National Post Office, and Mollison-Turner.

Legal Background: Outcome Review of Arbitration Awards

Manifest Disregard of the Agreement and Manifest Disregard of the Law

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and in labor arbitration cases, courts can vacate Continue Reading »

Ineffective Objections and Untimely Filings Lead to FAA Forfeiture: Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, _ A.D. 3d _, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024)

September 4th, 2024 Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitrability, Arbitrability - Nonsignatories, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Confirmed, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Confirmation of Awards, Delegation Agreements, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, First Department, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Formation of Arbitration Agreement, Grounds for Vacatur, Modify or Correct Award, New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75), Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Arbitrability, Questions of Arbitrability, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Second Department, Section 10, Section 11, Section 9, Service of Process, State Arbitration Law, Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Comments Off

A good chunk of FAA practice and procedure —including FAA practice and procedure in state court—involves knowing when, how, and why to make timely and effective objections and filings in arbitration enforcement litigation. Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024), which New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, decided on August 28, 2024, illustrates this point well.

Appellants were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, did not agree to arbitrate any matters, and did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. But the Court found that they participated in the arbitration without lodging adequate objections to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and did not timely file in the confirmation litigation their petition to vacate the awards at issue. Accordingly, the Appellants were—by their participation in the arbitration without effective objections to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction—deemed to have impliedly consented to arbitrate all issues before the arbitrator, including whether they were bound by the contract and arbitration agreement as successors-in-interest. Not a happy place to be.

Background

The transactions pertinent to Sivanesan began in 2008 when YBF, LLC (“YBF”) sold to Cosmetics Specialties, East LLC (“CSE”) an exclusive license to Continue Reading »

Another Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Mishap, this Time in the Seventh Circuit

August 22nd, 2024 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Diversity Jurisdiction, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 4, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Comments Off

subject-matter-jurisdiction The Seventh Circuit’s decision in King v. Universal Health Services of Hartgrove, Inc., No. 23-3254, slip op. (7th Cir. August 5, 2024) (nonprecedential disposition), is yet another lesson about how important it is to take great care to ensure that subject-matter and appellate jurisdiction requirements are met. King may be a “nonprecedential disposition,” but that doesn’t mean one should disregard its lessons.

Background

The story begins back in December 2018 when employee A (the “Employee”) commenced an action (“Action I”) against employer B (the “Employer”) that asserted various claims, including for employment discrimination based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Employer moved under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to compel arbitration based on an agreement Employee signed at the commencement of employment. See 9 U.S.C. § 4.

The district court in Action I granted the motion and entered judgment in May 2020. We cannot tell from the Court’s brief opinion whether anyone requested a stay pending arbitration. (See our recent post on Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).)

The arbitration proceeded and the arbitrator made an award in favor of the Employer. Employee commenced a new district court action (“Action II”) in which it sought an order vacating the award. Around the same time, the Employer made a motion in Action I to confirm the award under FAA Section 9. See 9 U.S.C. § 9.

That prompted the Court in Action II to make an order consolidating Action I with Action II. The Court designated no lead case and maintained separate dockets for each Action.

The Court in Action I made an order granting the motion to confirm. More than a month later the Court in Action II entered judgment for the employer, stating “‘[n]o further action’ was needed regarding King’s motion to vacate the award in that case.” Slip op. at 2.

The employer filed a timely notice of appeal in Action II. The notice of appeal referenced the case numbers for Actions I and II, as well as the Action I Court’s 45-day-prior decision confirming the award.

The Action II Court Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Action I was apparently commenced by the Employee based on federal question jurisdiction, as one of the claims asserted was under the Americans Continue Reading »

D.C. Circuit Says it has No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Competing Claims to Confirm or Vacate Award Made Pursuant to Collective Bargaining Agreement

August 21st, 2024 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, Labor Law, LMRA Section 301, LMRA Section 301(a), Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Comments Off

We’ve made over the last several months months a point of discussing arbitration-enforcement litigation cases addressing the subject-matter jurisdiction because—particularly in the context of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”)—it is not only complex but frequently counterintuitive. (See here, here, and here.) This case— International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Consol Energy Inc., ___ F.4d ___, No. 22-7110, slip op. (D.C. Cir. August 9, 2024)—caught our eye because the Court held that that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff on one ground and over the defendants’ counterclaim on an independent ground, Article III standing.

Background

The United Mine Workers of America (the “Union”) and coal mining companies (the “Mining Companies”), all subsidiaries of Consol Energy, Inc. (“Consol”), signed a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) but Consol did not. The CBA provided for arbitration of grievances. It also provided to Union members lifetime health care benefits. The Union claims that the Mining Companies could not reduce benefits unilaterally, even if a member no longer mined coal.

For its part Consol was the Mining Companies’ health care administrator. Prior to the CBA’s expiration date, Consol informed the Mining Companies’ mining employees that Consol would consider modifying miner benefits once the CBA expired.

That prompted a retired miner to file a grievance against Consol, an arbitration followed, and with the support of the Union, the miner obtained an award in his favor. The arbitrators determined they had jurisdiction over Consol, a nonsignatory to the CBA, which by the time the arbitration took place, had expired. They also determined that the proposed benefit modifications would violate the CBA and made an award that prohibited Consol from making them.

The Union brought against Consol and the Mining Companies an action in district court to confirm the award, invoking Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) Section 301(a)’s grant of subject-matter jurisdiction over actions “for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Consul and the Mining Companies brought a separate action to vacate the award, and the district court consolidated the two cases.

Prior to the district court reaching its decision Consol was split into two successor entities and otherwise ceased to exist. One of the two was joined but the district court dismissed it because its business did not concern coal mining. The other successor entity (the parent of the Mining Companies) was never made a party. The Mining Companies remained parties to the consolidated action.

The district court dismissed on standing grounds the Union’s confirmation action. It found the Union suffered no injury because there was no CBA violation. While Consul proposed to modify benefits it never did so. But the district court nevertheless determined on the merits that there was no basis for vacating the award, either. An appeal by both parties followed.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The D.C. Circuit’s Decision

The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that “[n]o party in this appeal has shown that federal courts have jurisdiction over its claim.” United Mine Workers, slip op. at 8. It therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Union’s claim, vacated the district court’s determination on the merits of the vacatur counterclaim, and remanded the counterclaim with instructions to dismiss it on standing grounds. Id.

The District Court had No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Confirm the Award

SmartSky: Fourth Circuit Says No Jurisdictional Anchor Post Badgerow

Introduction

This post discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in SmartSky Networks, LLC v. DAG Wireless, Ltd., ___ F.4^th ___, No. 22-1253, slip op. (4^th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024). SmartSky held that, under Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022), if a party makes a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify an award in an action over which the Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction, then it must nevertheless demonstrate that the Court would have had subject matter jurisdiction had the motion been brought as a standalone petition to confirm, vacate, or modify. That is so even if the Court has under Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) Section 3 stayed the action pending arbitration.

Suppose:

A and B, both New York citizens, entered a contract containing an arbitration agreement;
A and B become embroiled in a dispute that is governed by a federal statute;
A sues B in federal court, properly invoking the federal court’s federal- question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
B demands arbitration, and moves to compel arbitration under Section 4 and for a stay of litigation pending arbitration under Section 3;
A unsuccessfully opposes the motion, the Court compels arbitration and grants a Section 3 stay of litigation pending arbitration.
B ultimately obtains a $100,000 (exclusive of costs and interest) award in its favor and moves in the stayed action to confirm the award.
A opposes the motion on the ground the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award.

SmartSky would require the Court to dismiss A’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even though A made the motion in an action over which the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the Court had compelled the arbitration that resulted in the award, and the Court had stayed the action pending arbitration under Section 3. There is no federal-question jurisdiction, and because both A and B are citizens of New York, no diversity jurisdiction.

According to SmartSky, the dismissal of the motion to confirm would be required by Badgerow.

Badgerow

In Badgerow the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) held that a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction—independent from the FAA itself—must appear on the face of a standalone, petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and that independent basis cannot be established by “looking through” to the underlying arbitration proceeding that resulted in the award. See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1314, 1320.

Simply petitioning a court for relief under Sections 9, 10, 0r 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) raises no federal question and does not confer on a court federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction, as strange as that might sound to the uninitiated. In the absence of a federal question appearing on the face of the freestanding petition—such as a claim for relief falling under Chapter Two of the FAA, which implements the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), see 9 U.S.C. §§ 202, 203; 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or one falling under Chapter Three, which implements or Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Inter-American Convention”), see 9 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331—the only possible basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over such a standalone petition is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

If there is no diversity jurisdiction, and if the action does not concern an award falling under the New York or Inter-American Conventions, then the substantive provisions of Chapter One still apply but enforcement must be sought in state court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009) (“Given the substantive supremacy of the FAA, but the Act’s nonjurisdictional cast, state courts have a prominent role to play as enforcers of agreements to arbitrate”).

A “Jurisdictional Anchor” Post-Badgerow?

The author explained in a recent Arbitration Law Forum post—Philip J. Loree Jr., Weighing the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Post-Badgerow Second Circuit Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements for Applications to Confirm, Modify, or Vacate Arbitration Awards, Arbitration Law Forum (Nov. 13, 2023) (the “Jurisdictional Anchor Post”)— that Badgerow leaves unanswered an important question. It arises when—in a preexisting action over which the Court already has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction—a Court grants a motion made under Sections 4 and 3 of the FAA to compel arbitration and stay litigation, and a party subsequently moves in the same, stayed action to confirm, vacate, or modify an award resulting from the compelled arbitration. Does the Court in the stayed action have continuing subject matter jurisdiction to hear the parties’ motions to confirm or vacate the award, even though there is no independent basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction? Can the existing but stayed federal-question lawsuit provide a “jurisdictional anchor” for the motions to confirm or vacate even though the Court would not, under Badgerow, have subject matter jurisdiction over those motions if either were brought as an independent, freestanding petition to confirm or vacate an award?

SmartSky, as we’ve seen, says the answer to those questions is no: the parties moving to confirm or vacate must establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction even when the motion is brought in a pre-existing but stayed lawsuit over which the Court undisputedly had federal question jurisdiction.

SmartSky has flatly rejected the “jurisdictional anchor” theory (a/k/a “anchor jurisdiction”), under which the answer would be yes: the parties do not have to establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction because they are filing their motions in a preexisting stayed action over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

SmartSky Caused a Circuit Split Concerning the Viability of Anchor Jurisdiction

SmartSky‘s conclusion directly conflicts with the only other post-Badgerow U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to address anchor jurisdiction, Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, 66 F.4^th 1099 (7^th Cir. 2023). If we count pre-Badgerow cases, SmartSky also conflict with the pro-anchor-jurisdiction holdings of the Second, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Dodson Int’l Parts v. Williams Int’l Co., 12 F.4th 1212, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2021) (citing cases).

SmartSky’s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Arbitration proponent SmartSky has added to its legal team SCOTUS ace Daniel L. Geyser, Esq., Chair of Haynes and Boone, LLP‘s U.S. Supreme Court Practice, and, with Mr. Geyser’s assistance, prepared and submitted a very well-written and persuasive Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which among other things, pointed out the Circuit conflicts which SmartSky has created with both pre- and post-Badgerow decisions and explained why SmartSky believes the Fourth Circuit misconstrued Badgerow and failed to adhere to settled subject-matter-jurisdiction principles. SmartSky, No. 22-1253, Dk. 77.

The Petition also pointed out that, even if SmartSky correctly construed Badgerow, there is an independent basis for jurisdiction under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) because two of the parties are foreign citizens, DAG Wireless LTD (“Wireless”) and David D. Gross.

Both of these persons are, according to SmartSky, identified on the face of the petition as Israeli citizens (Wireless was identified as an Israeli company and D. Gross as an Israeli resident). Smartksy points out that the award therefore falls under the Convention and its enforcement raises a federal question. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 202, 203, & 207; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 22-1253, Dk. 77 at 13-16.

On March 13, 2024, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. 22-1253, Dk. 80. That raises the possibility that SmartSky might petition SCOTUS for certiorari, something that wouldn’t surprise the author given that Mr. Geyser has joined its team. If SmartSky petitions for certiorari, SCOTUS will presumably have to consider whether the current split in the circuits warrants certiorari or whether it should wait until more circuits have ruled on the issue post-Badgerow.

The author plans to submit to an ADR trade publication an article analyzing and critiquing SmartSky in some detail. For now, we briefly summarize what transpired in SmartSky and the reasons the Court gave for its ruling. Continue Reading »

New York Arbitration Law Focus: Appellate Division, Second Department Vacates Attorney’s Fee Award Because it was Irrational and Violated New York Public Policy

December 7th, 2023 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Attorney Fee Shifting, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Irrational, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, CPLR Article 75, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Exceeding Powers, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Making Decisions about Arbitration, New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75), New York State Courts, Outcome Risk, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Policy, Practice and Procedure, Public Policy, Second Department, State Arbitration Law, State Arbitration Statutes, State Courts, Vacate, Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Attorney's Fees, Vacate Award | Public Policy, Vacatur Comments Off

Attorney's Fees The question before the Appellate Division, Second Department in In re D & W Cent. Station Fire Alarm Co. v. Flatiron Hotel, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6136 (2d Dep’t Nov. 29, 2023), was whether an arbitration award had to be vacated because the amount of fees the arbitrator awarded was irrational and excessive and therefore exceeded the arbitrator’s powers under N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. (“CPLR”) 7511(b)(1)(iii). The arbitrator awarded fees that were 13.5 times the amount the prevailing party’s attorney said it charged its client on an hourly basis. The fee award was 44% of the amount the arbitrators awarded for the prevailing party’s claim. See 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6136 at *1.

The Court concluded that the fee award was irrational and violative of New York’s strong public policy against the enforcement of contracts or claims for excessive legal fees. It therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to confirm and denying the motion to vacate, and remanded the matter back to the trial court. See 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6136 at *2.

Flatiron Hotel is of particular interest because it shows that there is authority under New York arbitration law for challenging successfully awards of legal fees that are authorized by the parties’ contract but are off the rails in their amount. While not a high-stakes arbitration involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, it was one where the losing party was socked with a fee that was so far out of proportion of what it consented to pay that there was nothing whatosever in the record to support it.

Fortunately for the appellant in Flatiron Hotel, the Appellate Division set aside the fee award even though the standard of review for granting such relief is highly deferential. While decisions vacating awards are understandably quite rare, this was one where vacatur was quite appropriate, as we shall see. Continue Reading »

Weighing the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Post-Badgerow Second Circuit Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements for Applications to Confirm, Modify, or Vacate Arbitration Awards

Jurisdictional Anchor | Subject Matter Jurisdiction The U.S. Supreme Court decision, Badgerow v. Walters, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) (discussed here), requires that an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (usually diversity) must appear on the face of petitions to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards, and, by extension, petitions to enforce arbitral subpoenas or appoint arbitrators. See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1314, 1320. That independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction cannot be established by “looking through” to the underlying arbitration proceeding. In other words, the federal court cannot base subject matter jurisdiction on whether the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of the controversy had they been submitted it to court rather than to arbitration. See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1314, 1320.

Badgerow does not change the rule that federal question jurisdiction over a Section 4 petition to compel arbitration can be established by “looking through” to the underlying dispute that is or is claimed to be subject to arbitration. 142 S. Ct. at 1314; see Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 53 (2009); Hermès of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, 867 F.3d 321, 324-26 (2d Cir. 2017) (diversity of citizenship not determined by “look through”).

Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act expressly authorizes a Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction on that basis: “A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4; see Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1317.

Unlike Section 4, Sections 5 (appointment of arbitrators), 7 (arbitral subpoena enforcement), 9 (confirmation of awards), 10 (vacatur of awards), and 11 (modification of awards), do not expressly authorize the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction on a “look through” basis. See 142 S. Ct. at 1317-18; 9 U.S.C. §§ 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, & 11.

Badgerow, in the specific context of an action commenced by petition to vacate an award under FAA Section 10—which, in turn, prompted a cross-petition to confirm under FAA Section 9—held that the absence in Sections 9 and 10 of Section 4’s express language authorizing subject matter jurisdiction based on “look through” meant that Congress did not authorize “look through” subject matter jurisdiction for Section 9 and 10 claims (and presumably for claims seeking relief under Sections 5, 7, or 11). See 142 S. Ct. at 1319.

An independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction is required, and in the absence of a federal question appearing on the face of the petition (such as a claim for relief under Chapter Two of the FAA, see 9 U.S.C. § 203; 28 U.S.C. § 1331), the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). And there could be no diversity jurisdiction in Badgerow because the parties to the petitions were citizens of the same state. See 142 S. Ct. at 1316.

Badgerow’s reasoning certainly applies to independent, summary proceedings in which the only relief sought is under the FAA. But does it apply with equal force where litigation on the merits of an arbitrable or allegedly arbitrable dispute has commenced, and the motion to compel arbitration is made by motion in the pending action, which is stayed pending arbitration? Can the stayed merits litigation act as what former Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in his Badgerow dissent, referred to as a “jurisdictional anchor” for not only the motion to compel arbitration, but also other subsequent applications for pre- or post-award FAA relief relating to the arbitration? See Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1326 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

That is an open question in the Second Circuit after Badgerow, although pre-Badgerow the answer was yes. Let’s look at it more closely and try to get a sense of how the Second Circuit might rule on it considering Badgerow. Continue Reading »

Archive for the ‘Application to Confirm’ Category

Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part III)

The UpHealth Appeals to the Seventh Circuit

Discussion: UpHealth

Assuming that the UpHealth District Correctly Applied the Clear Mistake of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfact Standard, does it Comport with the FAA?

Two Proposals for Aligning the Mistake of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfact Standard with the FAA

Proposal 1: The Facts Showing the Mistake Must be Agreed or Conceded