Intl Relief & Development, Inc v. Godfrey Ladu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00936-AJT-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998874630]. Mailed to: Godfrey Ladu. [12-1302]

Appeal: 12-1302

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1302

INTERNATIONAL RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
GODFREY EMMANUEL LADU,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00936-AJT-IDD)

Submitted:

June 11, 2012

Decided:

June 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godfrey Emmanuel Ladu, Appellant Pro Se. George Everitt Kostel,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1302

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Godfrey

Emmanuel

Ladu

(“Ladu”)

appeals

the

district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
grant the motion of International Relief and Development, Inc.
(“IRD”) to confirm the arbitration award entered in its favor
against Ladu.

We have reviewed the record and affirm.

A district court’s legal rulings on a motion to vacate
or confirm an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration
Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9 (2006), are reviewed de novo, while
“[a]ny factual findings made by the district court in affirming
such

an

award

are

reviewed

for

clear

error.”

Wachovia

Securities, LLC v. Brand, 671 F.3d 472, 478 (4th Cir. 2012);
Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 991 F.2d
141, 145 (4th Cir. 1993).

Under the clear error standard of

review, we will reverse only if we are “left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

United

States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 337 (4th Cir. 2012).
Under the FAA, notice of a motion to vacate or modify
an

arbitration

award

must

be

served

upon

the

adverse

party

“within three months after the award is filed or delivered.”
U.S.C. § 12 (2006).

9

In this case, the district court made a

factual finding that the award was served on Ladu on July 21,
2011.

Ladu therefore had until October 21, 2011, to file a

2

Appeal: 12-1302

Doc: 15

to

motion

Filed: 06/14/2012

the

vacate

Pg: 3 of 4

award.

Nevertheless,

he

did

not

file

anything in the district court until almost a month later, on
November 14.
While Ladu protests that he did not receive actual
notice of the award on July 21, there is nothing in the record
to

suggest

court’s

“definite[ly]”

factual

or

conclusions

“firm[ly]”
to

the

that

contrary

the
are

district
mistaken.

Chandia, 675 F.3d at 337.

Consequently, we can only conclude

that

did

not

not

file

the

district

determining

that

court

Ladu

did

commit
a

clear

motion

to

error

in

vacate

the

arbitration award until more than three months after receiving
notice of it.

Nor, even assuming that the FAA’s three-month

filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling, do we find that
Ladu

merits

equitable

tolling

on

the

facts

of

his

case,

particularly given both the district court’s finding that he
possessed actual knowledge of the arbitration award on the very
day that it was entered and Ladu’s failure to move to vacate the
award in the more than five weeks that he had available to
timely do so even under his version of the date he received
notice of the adverse arbitration decision.

See Choice Hotels

Int’l, Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, L.L.C., 491 F.3d 171, 177 & n.6
(4th Cir. 2007); Taylor v. Nelson, 788 F.2d 220, 225 (4th Cir.
1986).

3

Appeal: 12-1302

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4