main image

Archive for the ‘Confirmation of Awards’ Category

« Older Entries

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 »

UpHealthIn 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:

  1. What is the difference, if any, between a “clear mistake of historical fact” and a “conceded nonfact?”
  2. What is or should be required to establish a “clear mistake of historical fact” or a “conceded nonfact?”
  3. 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.

 

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 on 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)

Objections Must be Timely and Effective in Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Including Litigation Relating to Consulting AgreementsA 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 »

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

Subject-Matter JurisdictionWe’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

Continue Reading »

Attorney Fees: Seventh Circuit to Consider Whether Exceeding Powers Challenge to Arbitrators’ Attorney’s Fees Award Warrants FRAP 38 Sanctions

June 19th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Attorney Fee Shifting, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Bad Faith, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Insurance Contracts, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Retrospectively-Rated Premium Contracts, Section 10, Section 11, Section 9, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Attorney's Fees, Vacatur 1 Comment »

Introduction

Attorney's Fees | Contract InterpretationMost challenges to arbitration awards—including attorney fees awards— fail because the standards of review are so demanding. The bar is exceedingly high by design. Otherwise—the reasoning goes—courts would “open[] the door to the full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals that can rende[r] informal arbitration merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process and bring arbitration theory to grief in post-arbitration process.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588 (2008) (citations and quotations omitted; some parenthetical material in original).

But the narrow margin for success is not a free pass for challengers to advance arguments that do not, in a court’s view, have a legitimate, good faith basis in the facts and the law, or in a reasonable argument for reversal or modification of the law.

A recent case in point is Circuit Judge Easterbrook’s decision in American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., No. 23-3134, slip op. at 1 (7th Cir. June 3, 2024) (Easterbrook, J.). The award challenger claimed the arbitrators exceeded their power by imposing as a sanction an award of $175,000.00 in attorney fees because the contract allegedly barred such an attorney fees award. The problem was that the arbitrators at least arguably interpreted the language in question and concluded that it did not bar the award of attorney fees in question. Moreover,  the attorney fees  award comported with New York law and the American Arbitration Association Commercial Rules, both of which the parties made part of their agreement.

The Seventh Circuit has signaled that it believes there was no good faith basis for the challenge and that the challenger has offered none, apart from its insistence that its interpretation was the only one even barely plausible. The challenger appears to have further undermined its litigation position by engaging in what the Seventh Circuit believes was recalcitrant behavior in the arbitration proceedings, and, according to the Court, not acknowledging the existence of controlling Seventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court authority controverting its position. The challenger compounded that by asserting—contrary to FAA Sections 10 and 11— additional award challenges that the Court concluded were simply attempts to second guess various determinations made by the arbitrators.

That this strategy backfired should come as no surprise. It resulted in the Court issuing an order to show cause providing the challenger 14 days “to show cause why sanctions, including but not limited to an award of attorneys’ fees, should not be imposed for this frivolous appeal.” Zurich, slip op. at 5 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 38). At the time of this writing no decision has been made by the Court concerning whether it will, in fact, impose sanctions.

Background: The Award of Attorney Fees

Petitioner Sun Holdings, Inc. (“Sun” or the “Award Challenger”) is a Texas- Continue Reading »

SmartSky: Fourth Circuit Says No Jurisdictional Anchor Post Badgerow

March 23rd, 2024 Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Confirm, Application to Stay Litigation, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Confirmation of Awards, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Diversity Jurisdiction, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 4, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act 202, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 202, Federal Arbitration Act Section 203, Federal Arbitration Act Section 207, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Motion to Compel Arbitration, New York Convention, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Section 10, Section 11, Section 6, Section 9, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 4 Comments »

SmartSky

 

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.4th ___, No. 22-1253, slip op. (4th 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:

  1. A and B, both New York citizens, entered a contract containing an arbitration agreement;
  2. A and B become embroiled in a dispute that is governed by a federal statute;
  3. A sues B in federal court, properly invoking the federal court’s federal- question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
  4. B demands arbitration, and moves to compel arbitration under Section 4 and for a stay of litigation pending arbitration under Section 3;
  5. A unsuccessfully opposes the motion, the Court compels arbitration and grants a Section 3 stay of litigation pending arbitration.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.4th 1099 (7th 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 »

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

November 13th, 2023 Amount in Controversy, Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Confirm, Application to Enforce Arbitral Summons, Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitral Subpoenas, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Confirmation of Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Section 16, Federal Arbitration Act 202, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 202, Federal Arbitration Act Section 203, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Section 5, Federal Arbitration Act Section 7, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Modify or Correct Award, Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Petition to Enforce Arbitral Summons, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Section 10, Section 11, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7, Section 9, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Comments Off on 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 JurisdictionThe 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 »

Subject Matter Jurisdiction in FAA Proceedings: Eighth Circuit Demonstrates It’s a Trap for the Unwary

August 23rd, 2023 Amount in Controversy, Application to Compel Arbitration, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirmation of Awards, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Section 5, Federal Arbitration Act Section 7, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Look Through, or Modify Award, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Petition to Enforce Arbitral Summons, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Section 10, Section 11, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7, Section 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Comments Off on Subject Matter Jurisdiction in FAA Proceedings: Eighth Circuit Demonstrates It’s a Trap for the Unwary

Introduction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Petition to Confirm | Petition to Vacate The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently decided a case that provides a good—and simple—example of how subject matter jurisdiction can be a trap for the unwary, especially for parties seeking to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). In Prospect Funding Holdings (N.Y.) v. Ronald J. Palagi, P.C., No. 22-1871, slip op. (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023), the Eighth Circuit vacated a district court’s judgment vacating two arbitration awards because the petitioner failed to plead the citizenship of the parties and therefore could not establish the requisite independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. But there was more to it than that. Continue Reading »

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal District Court Judge Rules that Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Must be Served by U.S. Marshal

August 19th, 2021 Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Default Award, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 12, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Personal Jurisdiction, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Section 12, Section 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Comments Off on Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal District Court Judge Rules that Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Must be Served by U.S. Marshal

Confirming Awards | Nonresident | Service by Marshal Required by MarshallFederal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) Section 9, governing confirmation of awards, says that “[i]f the adverse party shall be a nonresident[]” of the district in which a party commences a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, “then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. Federal Arbitration Act Section 12, which governs the service of motions to vacate, modify, or correct awards, says the same thing. 9 U.S.C. § 12. Absent party consent to another mode of service, must a party commencing against a nonresident of the district a proceeding to confirm, vacate, modify, or correct an award arrange to have a U.S. Marshal serve the papers? In Red Spark, LP v. Saut Media, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00171-JDW (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2021), United States District Judge Joshua D. Wolson, who sits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applied a textualist analysis to Federal Arbitration Act Section 9 and said the answer is “yes.”

Background: The Service Issue in Red Spark

In Red Spark the claimant filed on January 14, 2021, in federal district court a petition to confirm an arbitration award made in an arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). The petition’s certificate of service said the petition had been served by mail on the respondent, which was a corporate resident of California, and not of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The respondent did not appear, and the Court ordered the claimant to serve the respondent as required by Section 9 of the FAA. Following the Court’s instructions, the claimant requested that the U.S. Marshal Service (the “USMS”) serve process and was told that a court order authorizing the service was required. Consequently, the claimant petitioned the Court for an order directing the USMS to serve the respondent in California. The Court issued an opinion in response to the petition and made an order directing the USMS to serve the papers on respondent in California. “The passage of time, and evolving approaches to the law, can render some statutes out-of-date[,]” said the Court. Slip op. at 1. “But courts must enforce the laws as they are written, even when doing so requires an outdated approach.” Id.  Section 9 of the FAA “predates changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which shift the burden of service of process from USMS to private parties.” Id.  “The approach in the Rules might make more sense than the approach in the FAA[,]” “[b]ut the Court does not get to choose which statutes to enforce.” Id. “Though,” said the Court, it “would prefer to excuse USMS from serving process here, the FAA compels the Court to grant Petitioner’s motion and order USMS to serve the petition in this case.” Id. As a backdrop for its textualist analysis, the Court briefly summarized the history of the service of process by U.S. Marshals. Prior to February 26, 1983, explained the Court, “USMS was responsible for service of process in federal court cases[,]” and that was therefore the case in 1925, when the FAA was first enacted as the U.S. Arbitration Act. See Slip op. at 2. But from February 26, 1983 forward, “Congress amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 to relieve USMS of the burdens of serving as process-server in all civil actions[,]” and “[s]ince then, USMS has been out of the summons-serving business, aside from a few unique circumstances.” Slip op. at 2 (citation omitted).

The Court’s Interpretation of Section 9’s Service by Marshal Requirement

Turning to Section 9, the Court found “scant” case law interpreting the service by marshal requirement, necessitating interpretation of the statute’s text. Slip op. at 2 (citation and quotation omitted). As far as service of district nonresidents is concerned, Section 9 says “notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. The Court concluded that Section 9 unambiguously required service on a nonresident to be made by U.S. Marshal. “By using the word ‘shall,’” said the Court, “Congress intended that service by USMS would be mandatory in post-arbitration proceedings involving nonresident respondents.” Slip op. at 3 (citations omitted). Further, explained the Court, “the statute specifies only one method of service: ‘by the marshal.’” Slip op. at 3. The statutory text “in like manner as other process of the court” does not provide for “an alternative method of service.” Slip at 3. That text “modifies the phrase ‘served by the marshal.’” In 1925, when the FAA was enacted, the term “‘manner’ meant ‘a mode of procedure; the mode or method in which something is done or in which anything happens[.]” Slip op. at 3-4 (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 1497 (2d ed. 1937)). “‘[L]ike manner,’” reasoned the Court, therefore “means how process gets served, not who serves it.” Slip op. at 4. Had “Congress intended for the phrase ‘like manner as other process of the court’ to provide an alternative route to service by the marshal, it would have used the conjunction ‘or’ to permit service by the marshal or in like manner as other process of the court.” Slip op. at 4. Construing “the phrase to permit an alternate method of service” would “essentially render[] meaningless the reference to the marshal[,]” and the Court “must interpret Section 9 in a way that gives effect to all of its words.” Slip op. at 4 (citation and quotation omitted). The Court also could not “rewrite the statute to conform to modern expectations.” Slip op. at 4 (citing Bostock v. Clayton City, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1738 (2020) (“If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives.”)).

The Court’s Response to the Second Circuit and Certain Other Courts

The Court explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Reed & Martin, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 439 F.2d 1268, 1277 (2d Cir. 1971), “held that the phrase “like manner as other process of the court” refers to Rule 4.” Slip op. at 4 (also citing Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. U.S. Phone Mfg. Corp., 427 F.3d 21, 25 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008)). And the Court noted that “some district courts have permitted parties to make service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 rather than enlist USMS,” and that these courts “reason[ed] that Section 9’s requirement of service by marshal is an anachronism under the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Slip op. at 4 (quotations and citation omitted). “But,” said the Court, even though “requiring USMS to serve a petition might be anachronistic, courts may not ‘favor contemporaneous or later practices instead of the laws Congress passed.’” Slip op. at 4-5 (quoting McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452, 2568 (2020) (emphasis in original)).

Interplay between Section 9 and Rule 4

The Court said Section 9 trumped Rule 4 because “‘when two statutes cover the same situation, the more specific statute takes precedence over the more general one.’” Slip op. at 5 (quoting Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted)). For “Section 9 specifically governs service of petitions to confirm an arbitration award, whereas Rule 4 deals with service of process generally.” Slip op. at 5. And, in any event, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 81, the Federal “Rules yield to the ‘other procedures’ set forth in the FAA.” Slip op. at 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(6)(B)). The Court wrapped up by holding that Rule 4 did not repeal by implication Section 9’s service by marshal requirement. The Court concluded that “[a]lthough there is some tension between. . . [Section 9 and Rule 4],” it could “harmonize” the two provisions. Slip op. at 5. “Rule 4,” said the Court, authorizes a court to order USMS to serve process[,]” slip op. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3)), and “Rule 4.1(a) authorizes USMS to serve process other than a summons or a subpoena ‘anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located and, if authorized by a federal statute, beyond those limits.’” Slip op. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1(a) (emphasis added by Court).  Section 9, the Court explained, was “consistent with” these Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provisions, because Section 9 authorizes “marshals to serve a nonresident adversary in any district where that adverse party may be found. . . .” Slip op. at 5. Finally, the Court found that Congress did not by implication repeal Section 9 because it was able to reconcile Section 9 and Rule 4. Such repeals are, said the Court, “not favored,” Slip op. at 6 (citation and quotation omitted), “and the Court has not discerned any affirmative intention by Congress” to effect such a repeal. Slip op. at 6. Congress had amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 81 (concerning the applicability of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in general and in removed actions) several “times since the passage of Section 9. . . and has not elevated the Federal Rules to something more than a gap-filler for purposes of arbitration proceedings governed by the FAA.” Slip op. at 6; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(6)(B) (“These rules, to the extent applicable, govern proceedings under the following laws, except as these laws provide other procedures: . . . 9 U.S.C., relating to arbitration. . . .”) That means “Congress has not repealed Section 9’s special procedures for service.” Slip op. at 6.

Elephant in the Room: Did the Parties Consent to Service by Mail?

Section 9 requires U.S. marshal service on nonresidents of the district, but that does not mean parties cannot consent in advance to an alternative form of service. That may have happened here, although it is unclear: (a) whether the parties disputed the existence of arbitration agreement; and (b) assuming there was no such dispute, whether the point about consent to mail service was argued. The arbitration was apparently administered by the AAA, which ordinarily means that the parties have expressly consented to application of AAA arbitration rules (or are deemed to have so consented). Agreements to accept service of process by a mode other than formal service, or to waive service altogether, are valid and enforceable, and excuse compliance with statutory service rules. Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N.Y. 348 (1931); see National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315-16 (1964). Assuming the parties agreed to AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, Rule 43(a) provides that parties consent to service by mail of a petition to confirm an arbitration award:

(a) Any papers, notices, or process necessary or proper for the initiation or continuation of an arbitration under these rules, for any court action in connection therewith, or for the entry of judgment on any award made under these rules may be served on a party by mail addressed to the party or its representative at the last known address or by personal service, in or outside the state where the arbitration is to be held, provided that reasonable opportunity to be heard with regard to the dispute is or has been granted to the party.

AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures R. 43(a) (2013).

Other versions of AAA arbitration rules may contain similar provisions, although we have not, for purposes of this article, reviewed other AAA Rules to confirm that point. The Petitioner’s service of the petition by regular mail may therefore have been sufficient service.

It is also possible that there was a dispute between the parties as to whether they agreed to arbitrate at all, let alone under the AAA Rules. In any event, according to the PACER case docket, it appears that on May 7, 2021, the Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Petition without prejudice, so our query about the validity of service-by-mail in this case may well be moot, albeit one to keep in mind for future cases.

Want to learn more about confirming arbitration awards? See here, here, & here.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, this article, or any other dispute-resolution-related matter, please contact the author, Philip Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or at PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. has 30 years of experience handling matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act and in representing a wide variety of clients in arbitration, litigation, and arbitration-related litigation.

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.

 

Foreign Awards | Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide

July 23rd, 2020 Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Chapter 3, Federal Arbitration Act 202, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 207, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Foreign Arbitration Awards, Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, International Arbitration, New York Convention, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Panama Convention, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 9, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration 1 Comment »
foreign awards

In previous segments (here, here, here, and here) we discussed the confirmation of Chapter One Domestic Awards and Chapter Two Domestic Awards. This segment addresses foreign awards.

There are two types of foreign awards that are or may be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act: (a) awards made in the territory of a country that is a signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention” or “Convention”), the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Panama Convention”), or both, which we refer to as Chapter Two Foreign Awards; and (b) awards that are made outside the United States in a country that is not a signatory to the New York or Panama Conventions, which we refer to as Chapter One Foreign Awards.

What are Chapter Two Foreign Awards?

Chapter Two Foreign Awards are awards that are made in the territory of a foreign state that is a signatory to the New York or Panama Conventions, and which otherwise falls under one or both of those Conventions.

Continue Reading »

Chapter Two Domestic Awards | Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide

July 17th, 2020 Awards, Businessperson's FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act, Confirmation of Awards, Consent to Confirmation, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Chapter 3, Federal Arbitration Act 202, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 207, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, International Arbitration, New York Convention, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Practice and Procedure, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Section 9, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration 1 Comment »
confirm award chapter two

The last three segments of the Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide discussed the substantive and procedural requirements for confirming a Chapter One Domestic Award, and answered additional FAQs concerning the confirmation of such awards. (See here, here, and here.) This segment focuses on how confirming Chapter Two Domestic Awards—i.e., domestic awards that fall under the Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”)—differs from confirming Chapter One Domestic Awards—i.e., domestic awards that fall under Chapter One of the Federal Arbitration Act only and not under Chapters Two or Three.

This FAQ guide distinguishes between “Chapter One Domestic Awards” and “Chapter Two Domestic Awards.” For our purposes, an award is “domestic” when it is made in the United States, that is, by an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators sitting in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

An award made in the United is a “Chapter One Domestic Award” when it falls under Chapter One of the Federal Arbitration Act, but not under Chapters Two or Three, which implement the Convention and the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Panama Convention”).

What is a Chapter Two Domestic Award?

An award is a “Chapter Two Domestic Award” when it is made in the United States, but, for purposes of Section 202 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and Art. I(1) of the Convention, is “not considered” to be a “domestic award.” See Convention, Art. I(1). Such awards ordinarily fall under both the Convention and Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Award, and thus under Chapters One and Two of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Continue Reading »

« Older Entries