RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RZS HOLDINGS AVV, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PDVSA PETROLEO S.A.; ALI RODRIGUEZ ARAQUE; RODOLFO PORRO; JOSE ROJAS; IVAN HERNANDEZ; FELIX RODRIGUEZ; NELSON MARTINEZ; DESTER RODRIGUEZ; LUIS VIERMA; RAFAEL ROSALES; NELSON NUNEZ; VICTOR ALVAREZ, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:04-cv-00784-GBL-TRJ)
May 12, 2010
June 16, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and Arthur L. ALARCÓN, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Henry St. John FitzGerald, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher O. Davis, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Matthew A. Woolf, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, New Orleans, Louisiana; Joseph F. Giordano, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: RZS Holdings AVV ("RZS") appeals the order of the district court granting the motion of PDVSA Petroleo S.A. ("PDVSA") to confirm the arbitral award rendered in favor of PDVSA by the ICC International Court of Arbitration ("ICC"). We affirm.
I. RZS and PDVSA entered into a contract for RZS to deliver petroleum to PDVSA in Venezuela. delivery of the petroleum. sued PDVSA in Virginia PDVSA ultimately did not take
After negotiations broke down, RZS state court, alleging a breach of
PDVSA removed the case to federal court, and then
submitted it to arbitration as provided by the terms of the contract. breached breach. A three-member panel of the ICC found that PDVSA had the contract, but awarded RZS no damages for that
PDVSA then moved the district court to confirm the
award, and thus make it a binding judgment in United States courts. During the hearing on that motion, RZS's attorney withdrew from representation. The district court then confirmed the
award without allowing RZS a continuance to find replacement counsel. RZS appealed, and we reversed and remanded, holding See RZS
that the district court had denied RZS due process.
Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2007).
II. On remand, of now the with new counsel, award, RZS again challenged that the
arbitration tribunal had exhibited bias in favor of PDVSA, that the tribunal had failed and to consider the the evidence in an were
defective because PDVSA had paid the tribunal's entire fee when RZS was incapable of paying its share. The district court
granted RZS limited discovery, and RZS deposed the arbitrators and attempted to gather evidence to support its allegations. When this discovery produced no evidence to corroborate RZS's claims, RZS requested additional discovery and a hearing, which the district court denied. After considering the evidence, the district court again granted PDVSA's motion to confirm the award. initially held that the Inter-American Arbitration supplied the The district court Convention on
Commercial governed and
("Inter-American grounds for
refusing to enforce the arbitral award, and that RZS's arguments did not address criteria specified by the Inter-American
Alternatively, the district court assumed that, as 4
RZS had argued, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") governed RZS's claims, and held that RZS had failed to establish that the tribunal had done anything improper that would justify a refusal to confirm the award under the FAA. RZS noted this appeal.
III. We have carefully considered the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments, and we affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion. See RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Given that on
Petoleos S.A., 598 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Va. 2009). opinion, appeal. RZS primarily argues that the district court we need only briefly address RZS's
holding that the Inter-American Convention, and not the FAA, governs review of the award in this case. that the court should refuse to confirm RZS argues further the award under
§ 10(a)(2)-(3) of the FAA, which states that a court may vacate an arbitral award: (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; [or] (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced . . . . 5
9 U.S.C. § 10 (2006).
All of RZS's allegations of partiality, Thus, even assuming
corruption, and misconduct are baseless.
that the FAA applies, we hold that RZS has failed to demonstrate that the district court should have refused to confirm the ICC's award. RZS next contends that to enforce the award would violate its due process rights. RZS's other allegations properly sum of This claim is merely an amalgamation of of impropriety -all The of which is the no has
presented literally no authority (nor have we discovered any) in support of its argument that enforcement of the ICC's award
would violate RZS's rights to due process. Finally, RZS's argument that the district court erred by refusing to order additional discovery or an evidentiary hearing on the issue of arbitrator bias also fails. "This Court affords
a district court substantial discretion in managing discovery and reviews for the denial of or granting of a motion Star to compel &
Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cir. 1995). We find no such abuse here. The district court allowed
RZS to depose the arbitrators on the subject of bias, and these
depositions revealed only that RZS's allegations lacked factual basis.
IV. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?