Archive for the ‘Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation’ Category

« Older Entries

You Only Get One Shot at Vacatur: The Fourth Circuit Adopts the “Impermissible Collateral Attack” Rule | Center for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools & Colleges, ___ F.4th ___, No. 25-1372, slip op. (4th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026)

March 6th, 2026 Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Applicability of the FAA, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Final Awards, Impermissible Collateral Attack on Award, Petition to Modify Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Preclusive Effect of Awards, Section 10, Section 11, Section 2, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Vacate, Vacatur No Comments »

Introduction

The Fourth Circuit formally adopted a rule several circuits already apply: if an “independent” lawsuit is really an attempt to undo an arbitration outcome, it is an impermissible collateral attack on the award and will be dismissed. That decision reinforces the exclusivity and finality of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)’s confirmation, vacatur, and modification regime.

Separately, the Court made a practical point concerning Section 10(a)(3) prejudicial, procedural misconduct: an arbitrator does not commit “misconduct” by refusing to hear evidence when the arbitration agreement itself limits what is considered the evidentiary record and bars adversarial discovery. The same may be true when, as was the case before the Court, the arbitrator’s standard of review is deferential, and the proffered evidence is not material to the narrow question before the arbitrator.

The Fourth Circuit’s Adoption of the Impermissible Collateral Attack Rule: What Transpired?

The Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE) ran schools accredited by the Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges (the Alliance). After years of below-benchmark graduation and employment outcomes, CEHE’s system was placed on probation and repeatedly warned about losing accreditation. The Alliance withdrew accreditation.

CEHE appealed internally, then demanded binding arbitration as contemplated by the parties’ agreement. CEHE sought broad discovery and to introduce evidence outside of that deemed part of the internal appellate record, including information about how Alliance evaluated other schools for accreditation. The arbitration agreement limited arbitration to the record before the internal Appeals Panel and prohibited adversarial discovery. The arbitrator enforced those limits and made an award upholding the accreditation withdrawal.

The Alliance’s accreditation decisions were subject to deferential review only. That, in combination with the FAA, meant two tiers of deference were owed: The arbitrator had to review the Alliance’s decisions deferentially and, as is always the case under Section 10 of the FAA, a court reviewing the arbitrator’s award had to defer to the already deferential award.

CEHE filed in federal court: (i) a motion to vacate and, as part of the same filing, (ii) a complaint alleging due process violations and tortious interference. CEHE sought, in substance, to reverse the withdrawal of accreditation and recover damages flowing from it.

The district court denied vacatur and, as respects the complaint, granted judgment on the pleadings, treating the submission of those papers as an impermissible collateral attack on the award. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in Center for Excellence in Higher Educ. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schs. & Colleges, __ F.4th ___, 25-1372 , slip op. at 2 (4th Cir. Feb 05, 2026)

Principal Issues Addressed

The Fourth Circuit’s decision focused on two issues. First, the scope of relief for arbitrator prejudicial procedural misconduct under Section 10(a)(3) in cases where the arbitration agreement limits what comprises the record, forecloses adversarial discovery, or the arbitrator’s standard of review is deferential. (Read more about Section 10(a)(3) here, here, and here.)

Second, when is a post-award lawsuit not a genuinely independent claim but an impermissible collateral attack on the award, that is, an end-run around FAA Sections 10–11?

Contractual Limits on Record Content, Evidence, and Discovery, or a Deferential Standard of Review Imposed on the Arbitrator, Can Foreclose FAA Section 10(a)(3) Prejudicial Procedural Misconduct Claims

CEHE’s motion to vacate asserted the arbitrator denied CEHE a fair opportunity to present “pertinent and material” evidence material evidence by refusing discovery and excluding comparative-accreditation evidence. Center for Excellence, slip op. at 9; 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3).

The Fourth Circuit rejected that argument for two reasons. First, the excluded “other schools” material was not “pertinent and material” to the arbitrator’s task. The arbitration was not a free-ranging arbitration featuring de novo review of the Alliance’s decision making. The arbitrator was tasked with determining whether the record adequately supported the Alliance’s accreditation decision, and in making that determination the arbitrator determined that Fourth Circuit precedent required the arbitrator to defer to the Alliance’s decision. Center for Excellence, slip op. at 12-15 (citation omitted). So even assuming evidence about other schools’ accreditation experiences might have rhetorical force or evidentiary value in the context of a different dispute resolution framework, the Court concluded that, considering the deferential standard of review, evidence about other Alliance accreditation decisions was irrelevant. Center for Excellence, slip op. at 10-11, 14-15.

Second, the agreement itself foreclosed the arbitrator from considering the evidence the school argued the arbitrator had to hear or from permitting the adversarial discovery the school argued was required. Center for Excellence, slip op. at 11.  This is a key doctrinal point practitioners should note: Evidence cannot be “pertinent and material to the controversy” under Section 10(a)(3) if the arbitration agreement itself prohibits the arbitrator from considering that evidence. While the Court did not address this point, if the school wanted to challenge those limitations it should have attempted an FAA Section 2 pre-arbitration unconscionability challenge prior to the commencement of the arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 2; Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996) (under FAA Section 2, a party may challenge arbitration agreement on unconscionability grounds applicable to contracts generally). The author expresses no view on whether such a challenge might have succeeded.

The arbitration agreement expressly stated that the arbitrator could not consider evidence not in the Appeals Panel record and prohibited adversarial discovery. An arbitrator who enforces those terms is not “refusing to hear” evidence in the procedural misconduct sense; he or she is doing what the parties contracted for. That’s the arbitrator’s job.

This is a recurring theme in FAA jurisprudence: the FAA regulates egregious process breakdowns, but—apart from leaving the door open to a party seeking judicial reformation of an arbitration agreement under Section 2 in an appropriate case—it does not authorize a court to rewrite the parties’ arbitration agreement simply because one side is, after the fact, unhappy with the bargain it struck. See Aviall, Inc. v. Ryder System, Inc., 110 F.3d 892, 895-97 (2d Cir. 1997).

The Big Development: the Fourth Circuit Adopts the “Impermissible Collateral Attack” Rule

The more consequential arbitration-law holding was the Fourth Circuit’s adoption of the impermissible collateral attack rule.

The Premise: FAA §§ 10–11 Provide the Exclusive Route to Overturn or Undo an Award

The court treated it as common ground that a litigant seeking to vacate or modify an award must proceed under the FAA’s narrow vacatur/modification framework—principally §§ 10 and 11. FAA exclusivity and finality has a practical purpose: binding arbitration is designed to resolve the parties’ dispute expeditiously and conclusively.

The Court found adoption of the “impermissible collateral attack rule” necessary to preserve that presumed exclusivity and finality. Allowing disappointed parties to repackage vacatur theories as “independent” tort or constitutional claims would destroy finality, which could make arbitration a less attractive and more expensive alternative to court litigation.

How to Spot a Collateral Attack: Look at Wrongdoing, Harm, and Requested Relief

The Fourth Circuit adopted a functional test used by other circuits, focusing on:

  • The Alleged Wrongdoing. Is it the type of defect that would support vacatur under Section 10 (or modification under Section 11)?
  • The Harm. Does it flow from the award’s effect?
  • The Requested Relief. Is it, in essence, the relief vacatur would provide?

Applied to CEHE, each of the three supported application of the “impermissible collateral attack” rule:

  • The alleged wrongdoing was essentially “the decisionmaker refused to consider evidence”—classic § 10(a)(3) territory.
  • The harms (lost students, reputational damage, financial losses) flowed from the accreditation loss the arbitrator upheld and CEHE sought to overturn.
  • The requested relief—especially injunctive relief reversing the withdrawal—tracked what vacatur would accomplish.

The court also emphasized that a party cannot sanitize an impermissible collateral attack by tweaking remedies. A damages label does not save a claim when the theory of injury is an allegedly  defective arbitration process.

The Punchline: If it’s a Collateral Attack, the Whole Complaint is Tossed

Because the complaint was treated as a collateral attack, it was dismissed in toto, including tortious interference claims that at a cursory glance might appear “independent.”

The breadth of that remedy is significant. It signals that courts will not allow plaintiffs to proceed count-by-count where the thrust of the lawsuit is to overturn the arbitration outcome.

Doctrinal Implications of the Fourth Circuit’s Adoption of the Impermissible Collateral Attack Rule

Center for Excellence does more than announce a new label for a familiar concept. By adopting an “impermissible collateral attack” rule, the Fourth Circuit has supplied a doctrinal framework for defining when post-award litigation concerning claims allegedly independent from a Section 10 or 11 challenge is, in practical effect, an attempt to unwind the award that has already been or would be barred by Sections 9-11 of the FAA.  The decision’s implications extend beyond accreditation disputes and are likely to influence how parties plead, defend, and adjudicate post-award claims in the Fourth Circuit and perhaps elsewhere.

FAA Exclusivity, Finality, and the “Functional” Inquiry

The Court’s central move is to treat FAA Sections 10–11 as the exclusive doctrinal avenue for judicial relief that would set aside, modify, or otherwise negate an arbitral award. That premise is hardly novel, but Center for Excellence gives it operational content by insisting on substance over form. Courts are instructed to look past pleading labels and ask whether the alleged wrong, the asserted injury, and the requested relief are, in substance, a bid to obtain what vacatur or modification would provide (or would have provided had vacatur or modification been granted).

This substance over form approach is significant because it diminishes the viability of a common post-award strategy: coupling a narrow FAA vacatur motion with broader common-law or constitutional claims that seek to re-create, in a new procedural posture, the merits contest that the arbitration ended. Under Center for Excellence, it will be harder to argue that merely changing the cause of action (for example, to tortious interference or due process theories) changes the essential character of the relief sought where the litigation’s gravitational center remains the arbitral outcome.

Collateral Attack Doctrine as Distinct from Claim and Issue Preclusion

The impermissible collateral attack rule overlaps conceptually with res judicata and collateral estoppel, but it is not simply a repackaging of those doctrines. Preclusion asks whether a claim could have been or an issue was litigated and resolved in a prior adjudication. The impermissible collateral attack rule asks a different question: whether the new lawsuit is an improper vehicle for challenging the arbitral award at all, given the FAA’s exclusive remedial structure.

That distinction has practical doctrinal consequences. Preclusion analysis can be fact-intensive (identity of parties, privity, finality, opportunity to litigate, and so forth), and it sometimes requires careful attention to what the arbitral tribunal actually decided. The collateral attack rule can, in appropriate cases, be applied earlier, more categorically, and perhaps with greater ease, because it turns on the nature of the alleged wrong and the relief sought. Center for Excellence therefore provides defendants with an additional—and sometimes simpler—path to dismissal independent of conventional preclusion defenses.

Pleading-Stage Tool that Reinforces the FAA’s Narrow Review

The Fourth Circuit’s approach also matters procedurally: it confirms that a court may identify an impermissible collateral attack at the pleadings stage, without permitting the case to proceed into discovery and merits motion practice. That is consistent with the FAA, which favors speed and finality in award enforcement and sharply limits post-award judicial review. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 6, 9-11.

In that respect, the decision is likely to influence motion practice. Where a complaint is tethered to the award—because the harm is framed as the consequences of the award’s effects and the relief is framed to reverse, enjoin, or effectively nullify those effects—courts have a doctrinal basis to terminate the litigation quickly and early. Conversely, plaintiffs seeking to survive dismissal will need to plead with care, demonstrating that the asserted injury and requested remedy do not depend on re-litigating the arbitral dispute or undercutting the award’s finality.

The Substance of the Remedy Sought Will Often Be Decisive

Center for Excellence highlights that focusing on substance and practicality can drive effective arbitration-law (and other legal) doctrine. Injunctive or declaratory relief that would “reverse” the practical effects of an award is, predictably, the easiest target for a collateral attack defense. But the Court made clear that damages claims are not immune from scrutiny. Where the damages theory is that the arbitration process was defective and the plaintiff’s economic losses flow from the award’s operation, a damages label will not transform the lawsuit into an independent claim.

That focus on the practical effects of the remedies sought will likely shape how plaintiffs draft complaints and how defendants frame dismissal motions. If the requested relief would require the court to adjudicate—directly or indirectly—the propriety of the arbitral process or the correctness of the arbitral outcome, the collateral attack doctrine supplies a doctrinal basis for dismissal even where traditional preclusion doctrines might require more granular analysis.

Interaction with FAA Section 10(a)(3) and Contractually “Closed” Records

Finally, the decision’s Section 10(a)(3) discussion complements the collateral attack holding. The Court treated the arbitration agreement’s limits on discovery and the evidentiary record as materially shaping what can qualify as “pertinent and material evidence” for procedural misconduct purposes. Where parties contract for a closed record (or for review limited to an internal administrative record), an arbitrator’s enforcement of those limits will generally not supply a Section 10(a)(3) hook for vacatur. The same is true when the standard of review governing the arbitrator’s decision making is deferential, as it was here.

Taken together, these strands of the opinion underscore a consistent doctrinal theme: parties who bargain for procedural limits on arbitration—or arguably for deferential review by the arbitrator—should expect courts to enforce the bargain, both by (i) declining to expand Section 10(a)(3) into a vehicle for reengineering the agreed process and (ii) rejecting attempts to achieve the same end through post-award litigation framed as something other than an FAA vacatur or modification proceeding.

Conclusion

Center for Excellence is a clean Fourth Circuit adoption of a rule that arbitration practitioners often assume exists everywhere—but which has not been formally embraced by all other circuits. The rule strengthens award finality by closing a common loophole: a collateral attack on an award that is disguised as something else.

Contacting the Author

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

VIP Mortgage v. Gates: The Ninth Circuit’s “Legally Dispositive Fact” Doctrine—and a Stolt-Nielsen Parallel

January 17th, 2026 Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Confirm Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, Outcome Review, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law No Comments »

VIP Mortgage: Introduction

VIP Mortgage Manifest Disregard of the AgreementAt issue in VIP Mortgage, Inc. v. Gates, ___ F.4th ___, No. 24-7624, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025), was the Ninth Circuit’s so-called “legally dispositive facts” doctrine—which recognizes a rare exception to the rule that courts may not vacate awards for even egregious mistakes of fact. We have discussed in numerous other posts how the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) generally does not permit courts to review arbitration awards for factual or legal error and permits vacatur only on exceedingly narrow grounds, including “manifest disregard of the agreement,” and in some jurisdictions, “manifest disregard of the law.” (See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here; here, & here.)

Under the Ninth Circuit’s “legally dispositive facts” doctrine courts will vacate an award if the challenger shows: (1) the factual error was dispositive to the legal issue and (2) the arbitrator knew about the undisputed fact when deciding the issue. VIP Mortgage, slip op. at 9. The VIP Mortgage award challenger satisfied the first prong: the parties had previously stipulated to bear their own legal fees and the award of fees to the award defending party directly contravened the stipulation. If that’s all that mattered then the award challenger would have had a strong argument for vacatur under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 668–69, 684 (2010).

But the award challenger failed the second prong, making the case a clear candidate for confirmation. Neither the award challenger nor the award defender brought the stipulation to the arbitrator’s attention. The arbitrator, without the benefit of the stipulation,  interpreted what she believed the contract said. She did her job, the parties’ pre-award argument did not rely on (or, as far we can tell, even mention) the stipulation, and the award accordingly could not be vacated.

Let’s take a closer look.… Continue Reading »

Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part IV): Will the Seventh Circuit Reverse the UpHealth District Court?

November 14th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Agreements, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, Outcome Review, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Standard of Review, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, United States Supreme Court, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact Comments Off on Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part IV): Will the Seventh Circuit Reverse the UpHealth District Court?

Seventh CircuitWill the Seventh Circuit reverse the judgment in the UpHealth case?

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 discudssed 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, said the Court, 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 designed to shed further light on the case and the arbitration award vacatur standard on which the Court relied.

The first four of those questions were answered in our October 18, October 21, and November 12, 2024, posts. This November 14, 2024, post answers the fifth question: “If there is a [United States Court of Appeals for the] Seventh Circuit appeal of the UpHealth decision, is it likely the decision will be overturned on appeal, and if so, on what grounds?”

We explained in our November 12, 2024, post that UpHealth has appealed the district court decision to the Seventh Circuit. And if you’ve been reading our prior UpHealth posts, then you’ve probably already guessed that the answer is “yes,” it seems likely the Seventh Circuit will reverse the UpHealth decision.

In terms of the grounds, for such a reversal, we think the Seventh Circuit will probably conclude that the only forms of outcome review the Seventh Circuit recognizes is manifest disregard of the contract and violation of public policy, and that UpHealth involves neither of those grounds. That is all the more so where, as here, there is no agreement or concession concerning the allegedly mistaken fact. (See November 12, 2024, post.)

We think the Seventh Circuit may also conclude that recognizing vacatur based on a clear mistake of historical fact or a conceded nonfact would embroil courts in review of the arbitrator’s fact findings, including the sufficiency of evidence. Under Seventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court authority, the FAA does not authorize such review.  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). Major League Baseball Players Assoc. v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509-10, 511 (2001); Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 814 F.2d 1192, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) (Posner, J.); American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., 103 F.4th 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.); 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); Eljer Mfg., Inc. v. Kowin Development Corp., 14 F.3d 1250, 1254, 1256 (7th Cir. 1994).

We discussed all of these shortcomings in the UpHealth Court’s analysis in our October 7, 18, 21, and November 12, 2024, posts. We believe that the Seventh Circuit will probably also conclude that the UpHealth court erred by vacating the award in part, particularly since the Seventh Circuit recognizes outcome review in extremely narrow circumstances only and none of those circumstances are present here—where the district court has, for intents and purposes, second-guessed the arbitrator’s fact finding.

It will be interesting to see how the appellee (Damodaran) attempts to square the district court’s decision with Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court authority. We will continue to watch the appeal and report on significant developments.

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

 

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

October 21st, 2024 Application to Vacate, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Vacated, Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, 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 | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact Comments Off on Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part II)

clear mistakeIn 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.”  We promised to take a closer, analytical look at UpHealth and its “clear mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact” vacatur standard, and, in 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 that help shed further light on the case and the arbitration award vacatur standard on which it relied:

  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?
  4. Assuming that the district correctly applied the “conceded nonfact” standard, does it comport with the FAA?
  5. If there is a Seventh Circuit appeal of the UpHealth decision, is it likely the decision will be overturned on appeal, and if so, on what grounds?

That October 18, 2024 post went on to address questions 1 and 2. This Part II address the third question: “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?” The author thinks the answer is “yes.” One or more subsequent posts will answer questions 4 and 5.

Discussion

 

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?

The UpHealth Court’s application of the “mistake of historical fact” or “conceded nonfact” standard raises serious questions about whether the Court substituted its judgment for that of the arbitrators. On balance, the author thinks it did for the reasons set forth below (which presume familiarity with our October 7, 2024, and our October 18, 2024, posts).

There are at least three flaws in the Court’s analysis: Continue Reading »

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

October 18th, 2024 Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Imperfectly Executed Award or Powers, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact 1 Comment »

Historical factIn 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 promised  some further analysis of UpHealth Holdings, Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Sys. PVT, No. 24-cv-3778, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024), the principal case discussed in that post, which held warranted  partial vacatur of an award because the award was based in part on a “nonfact.”  In this and at least one other post, let’s take a closer, analytical look at UpHealth’s  “clear mistake of historical fact or conceded nonfact” vacatur standard, consider whether UpHealth comports with the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and take an informed guess about how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit might decide the case if there is an appeal.

We’ll focus on the following questions and our answers will presume familiarity with the October 7, 2024, UpHealth post, here:

  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?
  4. Assuming that the district correctly applied the “conceded nonfact” standard, does it comport with the FAA?
  5. If there is a Seventh Circuit appeal of the UpHealth decision, is it likely the decision will be overturned on appeal, and if so, on what grounds?

This Part I addresses questions 1 and 2. One or more subsequent posts will address questions 3 through 5.

Discussion

 

What is the Difference, if any, between a “Clear Mistake of Historical Fact” and a “Conceded Nonfact?”

 The standard adopted in UpHealth—which was derived from Electronics Corp. of Am. v. International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, 492 F.2d 1255 (1st Cir. 1974); National Post Office, Mailhandlers, Watchmen, Messengers & Grp. Leaders Div, Laborers Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 751 F.2d 834, 843 (6th Cir. 1985) (Stewart, Associate Justice (ret.), sitting by designation), and Mollison-Turner v. Lynch Auto Grp., No. 01 6340, 2002 WL 1046704, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2002)—authorizes vacatur of awards based on: (a) a “clear mistake of historical fact” or (b) a “conceded nonfact.” Both of these bases for vacating an award may, at least to some, suggest a fairly broad authorization to vacate awards that is not already encompassed within the manifest disregard of the agreement (a/k/a “essence of the agreement”) standard. That is especially so of vacatur based on a “clear mistake of historical fact.” Continue Reading »

Southern District of California Dismisses Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

September 25th, 2024 Amount in Controversy, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Look Through, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Vacate, Vacatur Comments Off on Southern District of California Dismisses Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

vacate subject-matter jurisdictionWe’ve repeatedly emphasized that—particularly since  Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022)—subject-matter jurisdiction issues arising out of petitions to confirm, vacate, modify, or correct arbitration awards present traps for the unwary. (See, e.g., posts here, , herevacate subject matter jurisdiction, and here.) White v. U.S. Center For SafeSport, No. 22-cv-04468-JD, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024), illustrates another subject- matter jurisdiction problem that arises, especially post-Badgerow: Is the amount-in-controversy requirement met when a petitioner seeks to vacate a “take nothing” award? The Court said the answer is “no,” at least in the circumstances of the case before it.

Petition to Vacate: Background

Respondent, United States Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) has been charged by Congress with “investigat[ing] and adjudicat[ing] allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct within U.S. Olympic and Paralympic organizations. Slip op. at 1 (citing 36 U.S.C. § 220541(a)). SafeSport investigated horse training and riding instructor Charles White (“White”) for allegedly engaging, over a period of three decades, in sexual misconduct against minors and adult females who participated in equestrian sports. Concluding those allegations had merit, SafeSport banned for life White from participating in in Olympic and Paralympic activities.   Slip op. at 1.

SafeSport’s rules provided White with an option to submit to arbitration the question whether the lifetime ban was warranted. White pursued that option but the arbitrator made an award upholding the ban. Slip op. at 1-2.

White petitioned the District Court for the Southern District of California to vacate the award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). He alleged diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which required him to show not only diversity of citizenship but also that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The petition sought to: (a) vacate the award, which awarded neither him nor anyone else any monetary relief, and simply upheld the lifetime ban; or (b) remand the award for reconsideration. The petition was bereft of any allegations or evidence demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Slip op. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).

The Court ordered White to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. Initially, White submitted to the Court a declaration stating “he had lost more than $75,000 in income as a hay dealer and horse stable operator ‘as a direct result’ of the arbitration decision.” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 44 ¶ 4). The Court dismissed the case because White did not amend his petition to make those allegations but granted leave for White “to ‘articulate the basis for his claim that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,’ among other possible amendments.” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 47).

White’s amended petition “include[d] the hay dealer and stable operator losses mentioned in his declaration[,]” and “contend[ed] that the losses were ‘a direct result of [the arbitrator’s] decision, which upheld the sanction of lifetime ineligibility to participate in the sport.’” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 10).

Discussion: No Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Petition to Vacate

Focusing on the allegation that the losses directly resulted from the arbitrator “upheld[ing]” the ban, the Court found White’s amended subject-matter jurisdiction allegations to be flawed. “Vacating the arbitration decision or remanding for new arbitration proceedings,” said the Court, “which is the sole relief White seeks in the amended petition, might start the arbitration process anew, but it would not overrule or otherwise reverse the ban imposed by SafeSport.” Slip op. at 2 (record citation omitted).

“The SafeSport ban[,]” explained the Court, “remains in full effect unless an arbitrator were to decide otherwise, which has not happened.” Slip op. at 2. Even if the Court vacated the award, that “would not restore to White the income he says he lost in his hay and stables businesses.” Slip op. at 2. White would not recover any of its losses because, even in the event of vacatur, the lifetime ban would remain effective. Slip op. at 3.

The Court explained that where, as here, an action seeks “nonmonetary relief, ‘the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.’” Slip op. at 3 (quoting Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., Inc., 993 F.3d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 2021))(quotation and citation omitted).

The Court concluded that White had failed to satisfy his burden to show that the amount in controversy requirement had been met “because a remand for further arbitration proceedings would not terminate or reverse the SafeSport ban, and would not restore the lost income White alleges. . . .” Slip op. at 3 (citations omitted).

White argued that Badgerow’s requirement that “the determination of subject matter jurisdiction over petitions to vacate under the FAA looks only to ‘the face of the application itself[,]’” Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9, was inapplicable. According to White, that requirement applied only when the basis for the petition was federal question, as it was in Badgerow. Slip op. at 3. But the Court said “there is no good reason why an FAA petition based on diversity jurisdiction should be treated any differently[]” from one falling under federal question jurisdiction, and White offered none. Slip op. at 3.

But the Court did not decide whether or not White’s argument might have merit “because, as discussed, White’s petition comes up short under established principles of diversity jurisdiction.” Slip op. at 3.

The Court also pointed out that White’s reliance on Theis Research, Inc. v. Brown & Bain, 400 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2005), was misplaced. Theis was a legal malpractice case in which the arbitrator awarded no monetary relief to either side. The client plaintiff filed in federal court a notice of motion to vacate, an application to vacate and a complaint seeking more than $200 million in damages. The defendant law firm moved to confirm the award. The Court denied the motion to vacate, granted the motion to confirm and entered summary judgment for the law firm on the complaint.

The Ninth Circuit determined that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on “‘the amount at stake in the underlying litigation.’” Slip op. at 4 (quoting 400 F.3d at 662-65.) “Because[,]” said the Court, the [Theis] plaintiff ‘sought to obtain by its district court complaint substantially what it had sought to obtain in the arbitration,’ the circuit court had no trouble concluding that the prayer for more than $200 million in damages established the required amount in controversy.” Slip op. at 4 (quoting 400 F.3d at 662-65).

The Court said the circumstances here were completely different in that there were no damages claims before the arbitrator, and that, in any event, “[i]t is also not clear that Theis survives Badgerow and its rejection of the ‘look-through’ approach to subject matter jurisdiction.” Slip op. at 4 (citing Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9). We are not sure that is necessarily so because Theis involved a claim seeking more than $200 million damages, and the amount in controversy was not solely based (and did not have to be based) on the amount in controversy in the arbitration but on the $200 million-plus amount the complaint sought.

The Court found that granting further leave to amend was unwarranted and “dismissed [the case] on jurisdictional grounds without prejudice to a vacatur proceeding in state court, as circumstances might permit.”  Slip op. at 4.

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 or state arbitration law, 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 photos featured in this post were licensed from Yay Images and are 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 »

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

sanctionsWe 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.

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.

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 »

« Older Entries