Reinsurance Focus

This post briefly summarizes circuit and district courts’ recent decisions concerning arbitration awards, none of which vacate an award.

Awards Upheld:
National Postal Mail Handlers Union v. American Postal Workers Union, No. 08-5487 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 2009) (agreeing with the district court that the arbitrator probably erred, but noting the deferential standard of review given to labor arbitration decisions, affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the award).

Mishra v. Doctors Hosp. of Augusta, LLC, No. 09-12548 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2009) (concluding that the district court did not err in compelling arbitration or in affirming the arbitration award).

Peng v. Gabay, Case No. 05-3939 (USDC D. N.J. Dec. 29, 2009) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as the plaintiffs’ arguments did not address any new evidence or controlling decisions and confirming the FINRA panel’s award, which, among other things, dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to comply with the panel’s discovery orders).

Cardell Fin. Corp. v. Suchodolski Assocs., Inc., Case No. 09-6148 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009) (granting petition to confirm the award and denying cross-petition to vacate the award, finding that the panel neither exceeded authority nor exhibited a manifest disregard of the law and that the respondents were not denied a meaningful opportunity to present their case).

Matthew v. Papua New Guinea, Case No. 09-3851 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009) (denying the petition to vacate the award; the petitioner failed to show the award was made in manifest disregard of the law or the arbitrator exceeded his authority, committed misconduct, or rendered an ambiguous or indefinite award).

Dailey v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., Case No. 08-1577 (USDC W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2009) (granting a motion for summary judgment to confirm a FINRA panel’s award; the plaintiff failed to establish that the award was completely irrational or that the arbitrator demonstrated evident partiality or acted in manifest disregard of the law).

MPJ, My Pers. Jet, A.V.V. v. Aero Sky, L.L.C., Case No. 09-693 (USDC W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2009) (accepting the conclusion from the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the award should be granted; no procurement of award by evident partiality, arbitrator exceeding authority or misconduct, or corruption, fraud or undue means).

Francis v. Landstar Sys. Holdings, Inc., Case No. 09-238 (USDC M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2009) (denying the motion to vacate award in employment dispute; the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, and no basis existed to conclude that the award was made in manifest disregard for the law).

Damages:
Mason Tenders Dist. Council v. Circle Interior Demolition, Inc., Case No. 07-11227 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2009) (adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, finding that the amount of damages is clear from the face of the award and that the plaintiff is entitled to interest).

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment:
Waddell v. Holiday Isle, LLC, Case No. 09-0040 (USDC S.D. Ala. Dec. 10, 2009) (denying motion to alter or amend judgment that challenged, among other things, the court’s denials of the motion to vacate and supplemental motion to vacate).

Finality of Award:
Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd., v. Stone & Webster, Inc., Case No. 08-00509 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (dismissing both the petition to vacate and the cross-petition to confirm, ruling that the award is not final and ready for review and refusing to address the parties’ arguments concerning whether part of the award should be vacated or confirmed).

This post written by Dan Crisp.