FAA Section 9 Archives - The Arbitration Law Forum The Arbitration Law Forum

Archive for the ‘FAA Section 9’ 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.

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 »

Sanctions: Seventh Circuit Awards $40,000 in FRAP 38 Fees and Costs in Zurich v. Sun Holdings Case

August 28th, 2024 American Arbitration Association, Appellate Practice, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Attorney Fee Shifting, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Confirmed, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, Section 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Attorney's Fees, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur Comments Off

We previously discussed the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., 103 F.4th 475 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.), in which the award challenger Sun Holdings, Inc. (“Sun Holdings”) claimed that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by imposing as sanctions a $175,000.00 attorney fee award, which they claimed, among other things, was barred by the language of the contract. (See our prior post, here.) 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. And the attorney fee award comported with New York law and the American Arbitration Association Commercial Rules, both of which the parties made part of their agreement.

The challenger further undermined its position by not acknowledging the existence of controlling Seventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court authority and engaging in the arbitration proceedings what the Seventh Circuit believed was recalcitrant behavior. The challenger compounded that by attempting to second guess various determinations made by the arbitrators.

That this strategy backfired, exposing Sun Holdings to sanctions, is not surprising. 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).

The Court, on July 1, 2024, after considering Sun Holdings challenger’s response to the order to show cause, determined that Fed. R. App. P. (“FRAP”) 38 sanctions were warranted. The Court “conclude[d] that Sun Holdings must compensate American Zurich for the legal fees and other costs that it was unnecessarily forced to incur by Sun’s unnecessary appeal.” July 3, 2024, Order, No 23-3134, Dkt. 42 at 1 of 2 (7th Cir. July 3, 2024) (available on PACER).

In response to the Order to Show Cause, Sun Holdings argued “that it did not litigate in bad faith because it was entitled to contest the Second Circuit’s understanding of New York law, as represented in ReliaStar Life Insurance Co. v. EMC National Life Co., 564 F.3d 81, 86-89 (2d Cir. 2009).” Dk. 42 at 1 of 2. (Our posts on ReliaStar are here and here.)

“But[,]” said the Court, “the dominant theme of [Sun Holdings’] brief in this court was that we should review and reject the arbitrators’ interpretation of its contract with American Zurich. That line of argument is incompatible with an agreement to arbitrate, as our opinion explains.” Dk. 42 at 1 of 2. The Court proceeded to quote in further support the following passage from its opinion:

[A]s if to highlight the fact that it disdains the limits on judicial review of arbitral awards, Sun wants us to reexamine the arbitrators’ conclusion that it engaged in frivolous conduct (it was “just putting on a defense,” Sun insists) and wants us to say that the arbitrators overestimated the amount of excess fees that American Zurich was compelled to incur. These arguments are unrelated to contractual meaning. They are unabashed requests to contradict the arbitrators’ findings, something the Federal Arbitration Act forbids.

Dk.42 at 2 of 2 (quoting American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc. 103 F.4th 475, 478 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.)).

The Court said “Sun Holdings’ response to our order to show cause does not address that baseless aspect of its appellate argument.” Dk. 42 at 2 of 2. Sanctions, concluded the Court, would be imposed.

Having determined that FRAP 38 sanctions were warranted, the Court ordered American Zurich “to file a statement of the fees and costs incurred in defending its judgment,” giving Sun Holdings an opportunity to respond.

American Zurich originally sought $46,300.30 in fees and costs, but amended its statement to seek $75,250.80. August 21, 2024, Fees and Costs Order, No 23-3134, Dkt. 47 at 1 -2 of 2 (7th Cir. August 21, 2024) (available on PACER).

But the Court ordered Sun Holdings to “pay $40,000 to American Zurich as compensation for this frivolous appeal.” Dkt. 47 at 2 of 2. The Court said that it “declined to award the full amount sought by American Zurich[]” because “[a]n award exceeding [$40,000.00] is difficult to justify, given that much of the legal work should have preceded the appeal and we are not awarding fees for legal work in the district court.” Dkt. 47 at 2 of 2.

Contacting the Author

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

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.

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 »

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 Interpretation Most 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 (7^th 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

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.